ASHWINI KUMAR BHARDWAJ Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer to quash FIR No. 471/96 Police Station, Kotwali, Chittorgarh under Sections 3, 7 r/w 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. 1959.

(2.) The brief facts are that A.S.I. Ram Singh conducted search of the cars Tata Siyara of the petitioner and recovered illegal ammunition on 7-6-96. He lodged first information report and a case was registered against the petitioner FIR No. 411/96 under Section 3 r/w 25 of the Arms Act. During investigation the petitioner furnished an information under Section 27 Evidence Act for the recovery of U.S. Carbine cal 30 M.I. from the house of Mohan Mistri and in pursuance of this information the above illegal arm was recovered in a bag from the house of Mohan Mistri at the instance of the petitioners. The bag was locked and the petitioner stated this to be his lock which was broken in the absence of the key by the petitioner. Ort the basis of this information and recovery of U.S. Carbine of which the petitioner did not possess licence, therefore, Ranvijya Singh sub-Inspector and S.H.O. P.S. Bhadesar lodged a report on 26-6-96 at P. S. Chittorgarh whereupon another criminal case FIR No. 471/96 under Section 3, 7 r/w 25 and 27 Arms Act was registered against the petitioner. The petitioner was in judicial custody in case No. FIR 411/96. The Investigation Officer of FIR No. 471/96 presented an application in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. Chittorgarh to take the petitioner in Police Custody which was rejected by order D/- 29-6-96 on the ground that the recovery was made during investigation of FIR No. 411/96 and the police had sufficient opportunity for investigation. The petitioner has now challenged through this petition, registration of the case against him by FIR No. 471/96 Police Station, Chittorgarh when already FIR no. 411/96 was under investigation for the offence under Section 3 r/w 25 Arms Act.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the police has no power to register another FIR on the basis of alleged recovery in pursuance of an information under Section 27 Evidence Act in previous FIR No. 411/96. It is contended that registration of another FIR No. 471/96 is illegal and without jurisdiction. The alleged recovery is relevant and admissible only in the matter alleged in FIR No. 411/96. Separate FIR cannot he registered against the petitioner for such recovery. Therefore, the investigation being conducted in connection with FIR No. 471/96 deserves to be quashed. The recovery made in pursuance of an information is part of the investigation of FIR No. 411/96 registered for same nature of offence under the Arms Act. It is contended separate FIR has been registered in order to increase number of cases and to humilate him to show that the petitioner is a dangerous criminal. It is therefore, argued that when the recovery in pursuance of the information can be investigated in FIR 411/96 itself and result can be submitted along with the matter in the aforesaid FIR then registration of separate FIR is abuse of process of law and improper exercise of its powers and the Court should intervene to prevent this excess exercise of jurisdiction and abuse of process of law. Reference was made to 1996 Criminal Law Reporter (Rajasthan) 245 (Harbanslal v. State of Rajasthan).