AMARPAL Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AMARPAL son of Bharat Singh, petitioner is before this Court with the request to quash the FIR dated 18.08.2015 bearing Case Crime No. 188 of 2015 under Section 408, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120 -B IPC and under Section 36 of the Manarega Adhiniyam at Police Station Shergarh district Mathura and further prayer has been made for issuance of writ in nature of mandamus commanding respondents not to arrest the petitioner in reference of 18.08.2015 bearing Case Crime No. 188 of 2015 under Section 408, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120 -B IPC and under Section 36 of the Manarega Adhiniyam at Police Station Shergarh district Mathura.

(2.) FACTUAL matrix of the case in brief are that petitioner happened to be the Pradhan of village Bhimari block Chhata district Mathura and as against petitioner and others, application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C has been moved by one Shiv Kumar son of Chhiman Lal complaining therein that petitioner in the capacity of Gram Pradhan in active collusion of Pawan Varma, Gram Vikas Adhikari, who happens to be the Ex -Officio Secretary of Gram Panchayat Dhimari and in active collusion of the official of Post Office, Shergrah got fictitious accounts opened and in the said fictitious accounts in question wages of 40 labourers of Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Gurantee Scheme, to the tune of Rs. 10,78,660/ - (Rs. Ten lacs seventy eight thousand six hundred sixty) has been misappropriated and diverted. In the said direction based on the said fraud and manipulation, complaint had been made before the Project Director pertaining to illegally opening of the accounts and illegal withdrawal of the amount in question and then in the inquiry so conducted clear cut report has been submitted to the effect that in active collusion of the petitioner alongwith Ex -Officio Secretary Pawan Varma and the official of Postal Department large scale fictitious accounts have been opened and amount in question has been misappropriated and based on the said report action has been directed to be taken but in spite of the said direction, action has not been taken, same impelled the complainant to move application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C wherein directives have been issued for registering and investigating the case bearing Case Crime No. 119 of 2015 under Sections 408, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120 -B IPC at Police Station Shergarh district Mathura. After the said FIR has been registered on 11.05.2015, it appears that another FIR has been lodged by Block Development Officer, Dr. Ajeet Kumar on 18.08.2015 bearing Case Crime No. 188 of 2015 under Section 408, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120 -B IPC read with Section 36 of the Manarega Adhiniyam at Police Station Shergarh district Mathura. Lodging of second FIR, has forced the petitioner to be before this Court complaining therein that on the same set of facts second FIR has been registered whereas registration of second FIR is not at all permissible in law on the same set of facts accordingly any action taken pursuant to second FIR cannot be subscribed by law and said action has to be restricted and second FIR accordingly will have to go.

(3.) ON the matter being taken up today, learned AGA, Sri Faheem Ahmad, Advocate has obtained requisite instruction and based on the said instructions so received submission has been made by him that Section 154 doesn't prohibit registration and investigation of two FIRs and here in the present case second FIR has been lodged by a statutory authority, who in law is obligated to lodge FIR, once illegality has been found in the transaction in question and there may be some similarity in the both the FIRs but the fact of the matter is that there is no sameness in the contents of FIR, in view of this, prayer that has been made by petitioner that second FIR in question on the same set of facts is liable to be quashed cannot be accepted.