BHUSHAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in order to challenge FIR No. I-172 of 2018 registered against the petitioner with Topkhana Police Station, Ahmedngar on 4/4/2018 for the offences punishable under Sec. 420, 467, 468 and 471 red with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Respondent No.3 is the informant. He was working as Deputy Regional Transport Officer, Ahmedngar at the relevant time.

(2.) The contention of the petitioner is that with respect to the same transaction, earlier another First Information Report was registered against him for the offences punishable under Ss. 406,420,467,468,471,120-B read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code on 4/3/2018 with MIDC Police Station, Ahmednagar vide FIR No. I-91 of 2018. He states that apart from him, Anurag Malhotra, Govardhan Motilal Bihani, Abhishek Govardhan Bihani, Sushil Ostawal and Ajay Rasal are also added as accused in the First Information Report dtd. 4/3/2018 registered with M.I.D,C. Police Station, Ahmednagar.

(3.) The sole contention raised by the petitioner while assailing the impugned First Information Report is that, law does not permit registration of second First Information Report with respect to one offence. Perusal of all the grounds in the petition will indicate that this is the sole ground of challenge. In ground No.8 a contention is raised that contents of the First Information Report are vague, false and baseless and do not constitute any offence. This is a general ground which was also not pressed during the course of hearing. Thus, the sole issue that arises for consideration is whether the impugned First Information Report could have been registered against the petitioner in view of earlier First Information Report.