VIJAY KISHORE GOSWAMI Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioners have filed this petition for quashment of the FIR dated 3-10-2009 lodged by Respondent No. 3-Vivekanand Singh, in respect of Crime No. 320/2009 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B, IPC registered at Police Station, Bemetera, District Durg, C.G.

(2.) Before adverting to the rival contentions of the parties, narration of the facts of the case would be necessary for disposal of this petition. One Ram Saran Deo was the Mahant of various temples situated at Vrindavan (UP), Amarkantak (MP) and different villages of Tehsil Bemetera, District Durg, CG who had executed a Will (Annexure P-2) on 15-1-2006 in favour of Petitioner No. 2 Mahant Shri Sekhar Sharan Deo herein of whom the Petitioner No. 1 Vijay Kishore Goswami is the father. It is said that within three days of execution of the said Will at Vrindavan, said Mahant Ram Saran Das expired in one of the hospitals situated at Vrindavan (UP). Further undisputed facts are that the Will was in respect of various properties of three States, i.e., U.P., M.P. and C.G. including about 700 acres of land and also the other properties in the State of Chhattisgarh. Further, undisputed facts are that on or about 27-6-2009 one Brij Bihari lodged an FIR (Exh. P-5) before Police Station, Vrindavan, Mathura (U.P.), vide Crime No. 593/2009, English translation of which as furnished by the Petitioners read as under:

(3.) The main contention of the Counsel for the Petitioners is that in relation to the same subject matter FIR was lodged by one Brij Bihari vide Crime No. 593/2009 in Police Station Vrindavan, Mathura (UP) for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471, IPC. However, after detailed enquiry final report (Khatma) under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been submitted on the ground of insufficiency of evidence and the said report is pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathura, for its consideration. According to the Counsel for the Petitioners for one offence there cannot be two FI Rs and in view of the dictum of the Supreme Court in the matter of T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2001 AIR(SCW) 2571 the second FIR lodged at Bemetera is liable to be quashed.