SANDEEP KATYAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Crl. M.A. Nos. 32636/2018 (Delay)

(2.) Grievance of the petitioner in the present petition is that on the similar complaint with identical facts complainant earlier filed a complaint before the DCP, West District on which FIR No.33/2018 was registered at PS Tilak Nagar under Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (in short 'POCSO') and Section 354 IPC. Thus a FIR on the said allegations having already been registered, learned Metropolitan Magistrate could not have directed registration of the second FIR and at best could have directed the Investigating Officer to investigate the offences alleged by respondent No.2 during the course of investigation in the first FIR.

(3.) Indisputably, in view of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court T. T. Antony vs. State of Kerala and Others., (2001) 6 SCC 181, Upkar Singh Vs. Ved Prakash and Others., (2004) 13 SCC 292, no second FIR for the same allegations could have been registered. However, it would be appropriate to detail the circumstances in which second FIR got registered.