PARVEZ PARWAZ Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) "whether more than one F. I. R. can be registered regarding the same incident or incidents" is the cardinal question that falls for consideration in this revision, by means of which the order dated 29. 07. 2008, passed by Sri Ajay Kumar Tripathi, the then Chief Judicial Magistrate Gorakhpur in Case No. 900 of 2007 (Parvez Parwaz vs. Yogi Aditya Nath and others) has been challenged.

(2.) BY the impugned order, the application moved by the revisionist (herein-after to be referred as 'the applicant') under section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'the Cr. P. C'.), has been rejected merely on the ground that there is no justification to get the second FIR registered regarding the same incidents.

(3.) THE facts emerging from the record, shorn of unnecessary details, leading to the filing of this revision, in brief, are that the applicant Parvez Parwaz moved an application under section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Gorakhpur on 16. 11. 2007. On that application, a report was called for from S. O. P. S. Cantt Gorakhpr, who submitted his report on 27. 11. 2007. After hearing argument of the learned counsel for the applicant, the learned CJM Gorakhpur without going into the allegations made by the applicant against named and unnamed persons rejected the application under section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. by impugned order merely on the ground that another FIR regarding the same incident was lodged by Hazarat s/o Vismilla at P. S. Cantt at Case Crime No. 145/07, under sections 147, 436, 427, 506 IPC, Section 7 Crl. Law Amendment Act and section 2/3 U. P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities Prevention Act, in which the charge-sheet also has been submitted and hence there is no justification to get the fresh FIR registered regarding the same incident. Hence this revision.