(1.) By way of instant petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioners have challenged the registration of First Information Report No.91/2009 lodged at Police Station Kapasan, District Chittorgarh for the offence under section 436, 427, 147, 149 IPC and Section 3(1)(X), (2) and (3) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The petitioner has wrongly named District Ganganagar in his petition.
(2.) The relevant facts giving rise to the present petition are that one Madhu Nath s/o Nanji b/c Kalbelian, r/o Gadariavas, lodged an oral report at Police Station Kapasan, stating that on 11.03.09 at about 10.00 PM his family members were sleeping in their house, then about 80-90 persons came on 15-20 motorcycles and while abusing by caste, poured kerosene on their house and lit fire to their houses. First of all, fire was lit in his house then to the house of Ratan , Sohan and Omkar. On this report, FIR 91/2009 was registered against the present petitioners under afore-mentioned sections.
(3.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in the report of Heera s/o Nagji a FIR No.90/2009 under section 436, 427, 323, 147 and 149 IPC and section 3(1)(X), (2) and (3) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act , was registered in the same police station. Therefore, subsequent first information report, for the same offence, cannot be registered and further no investigation can be continued. Therefore, subsequent FIR No.91/2009 be quashed. Learned Public Prosecutor contended that on the relevant date, petitioners committed separate offence under the above provisions in respect of properties of separate persons. Therefore, separate FIRs were lodged and, therefore, there are no grounds to quash the subsequent first information report. The learned counsel for the petitioners , while advancing his above arguments relied on the following judgments :- Badrigiri vs. State of Rajasthan ( 2004 (2) Cr.L.R. [Raj.] 1330), and T.T.Antony vs. State of Kerala [2001 Cr.L.R. (SC) 633] with other matters.