SURENDRA SHARMA Vs. RAMCHARAN LAL JATAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is preferred by the petitioners for quashing the order dated 15.04.2013 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gwalior in Criminal Case No.______/2013 complaint (Ramcharan Lal and others v. Surendra Sharma and others) whereby the complaint application filed by the respondents No.1 & 2 herein/complainants was ordered to be sent to Officer-in-Charge of the concerned Police Station for lodging of the FIR on the basis of the complaint and submit a report after conducting the investigation in the matter.

(2.) Short facts of the case are that on 07.04.2013 at 11.00 a.m. Omprakash (Respondent No.2 herein) alongwith his neighbour, Ratan Singh Kushwah reached to the Police Station, Thatipur and lodged a report to the effect that on the same day i.e., 07.04.2013 at 9.30 a.m. he was cleaning his shop situated in his house, at that time the accused, Surendra Sharma, Harsh Sharma, Bunty and Shailu came to his shop and hurled abuses, on restraining to do so, Bunty dealt a lathi blow which struck over his head, then he shrieked, on hearing the shriek, his father, Ram Charan Lal came to save him, then all the accused persons caught hold and threw down as well as beaten him, Harsh dealt a danda blow as a result of which, his father sustained injuries over his both the legs. Surendra dragged him out from the shop and threw down and beaten him as a result of which, he also sustained the injuries. They also threatened to kill him. On the basis of the aforesaid, an FIR was registered at Crime No.135/2013 for the offence under Sections 294, 323, 506 read with 34 of IPC. The criminal law was triggered and set in motion. Thereafter, the respondents No.1 & 2 filed a complaint application under Sections 3 (1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and 307, 326, 294, 506-B read with 34 of IPC against the accused persons (petitioners herein) before the Court on 15.04.2013 alleging the incident and that the police has not recorded the report as per the incident narrated by the complainants but the report has been distorted. The complainants are getting treatment in J.A. Group of Hospital as indoor patients and belongs to the Scheduled Caste. Ramcharanlal has sustained fracture in both the legs. The accused being influenced persons, the report was not properly lodged and no suitable action has been taken on the complaint, therefore, case may be registered against the accused (petitioners herein) under Section 3 (1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and 307, 326, 294, 506-B read with 34 of IPC. The Court below considered the complaint application and vide the impugned order passed under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. ordered to send the complaint application to the Officer-in-Charge of the concerned Police Station with a direction to register the FIR on the basis of the complaint and to make the investigation and submit the report to the Court. Being aggrieved thereof, this petition has been preferred by the petitioners.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent No.1, Ramcharan Lal has agreed to sell his house in favour of the petitioner No.1, Surendra Sharma for a consideration of Rs.85.00 lacs and executed an agreement. Subsequently, Ramcharan Lal did not execute the sale deed, therefore, Surendra Sharma filed a Civil Suit for Specific Performance of the Contract to Sale and permanent injunction which is pending before III Additional District Judge, Gwalior wherein temporary injunction has been passed in favour of the petitioners. On 07.04.2013, respondents No.1 & 2 alongwith their associates came and tried to forcibly dispossess, therefore, a quarrel took place between both the parties in which members of both the parties have sustained injuries. On the basis of report lodged by both the parties, cases were registered against each other. It is further submitted that on the basis of report lodged by the respondent No.2, an FIR at Crime No.135/2013 was registered and the case is under investigation. The complainants had filed the complaint with an intention to harass the petitioners. He also submits that the complaint submitted by the respondents No.1 & 2 is of the same incident, therefore, on the basis of same facts, second FIR as directed by the learned Magistrate cannot be registered. There can be no second FIR in respect of the same cognizable offence. In this regard, learned counsel placed reliance upon the following decisions:-