JAI BHAGWAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Jai Bhagwan son of Sarupa has moved the present petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying that F.I.R. No. 221 dated 17.8.1992 registered under section 25 of the Arms Act and under section 5 of Terrorists & Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985 at Police Station, Charkhi Dadri, be quashed.

(2.) The facts as alleged are that on 17.8.1992 it was alleged by Naresh Kumar that three persons namely Devinder Singh, Rajbir and Jai Bhagwan committed a robbery. Out of those three accused Jai Bhagwan was armed with a pistol with which the complainant was threatened and it was Jai Bhagwan who forcibly took out a sum of Rs. 550 from the pocket of the complainant at 5.30 p.m. while the complainant was at his shop and thereafter the accused made good their escape. On the statement of Naresh Kumar F.1.R. No. 220 was registered on 17.8.1992, which is annexure P/I. During investigation, of the aforesaid case, Shri Surjit Kumar, SHO, Police Station Dadri allegedly apprehended Jai Bhagwan and a country made revolver was allegedly recovered from his possession. On the report of Shri Surjit Kumar as well, a case under section 25 of the Arms Act and under section 5 of Terrorist & Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act was registered vide F.I.R. No. 221 at 8.00 p.m.

(3.) On behalf of the petitioner, it has been pointed out that when a case has been registered vide F.I.R. No. 220 a little earlier and in that case also offences under the Arms Act and TADA had been enumerated and a challan has also been presented and when these two offences find mention in the report under section 173 Cr. P.C., a photocopy of which has been placed on record by the petitioner, there was no justification for registration of second case for the same offences against one of the accused who alone has come to this court through the present petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the particulars of the revolver are also same in both the cases. The alleged recovery was in fact a part of the investigation of the case registered a little earlier. This factual position has not been contradicted.