RAM CHARAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is petition under section 482 Crimial P.C. to quash FIR No. 7/96 pending at the Police Station Roopbas for offence under sections 323, 341 & 379 Penal Code and under section 3 of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (prevention of Atrocities) Act. 4

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor.

(3.) It will be pertinent to mention the facts of the case in short Phusinya complainant filed a complaint in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Roopbas on 7.10.95 against petitioner as well as some other persons for the offence Under section 323, 341 & 379 Penal Code and Under section 3 of Scheduled caste/Scheduled Tribe (prevention of Atrocities) Act. The same was forwarded by learned magistrate under section 156(3) Cr.PC. to the Police Station Roopbas where an FIR No. 318/95 was chalked out on 19.10.95. After due investigation challan was presented against Bachchu Singh for the offence under section 323 & 341 Penal Code only and against rest of the accused persons, the police did not find any case. Chargesheet No. 202/95 was submitted in the court only against Bachusingh. The petitioner neither filed any protest petition nor any complaint nor any objection was raised before the learned magistrate. Instead he submitted an complaint in the court of Judicial Magistrate Roopbas on 29.11.95 on the same facts. Learned Magistrate again forwarded this complaint under section 156(3) Cr.PC. to the Police Station Roopbas where FIR 7/96 was registered for the offence under section 323, 341 & 379 as well as 3 of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that second FIR i.e. FIR No. 7/96 should be quashed on the ground that second FIR on the same facts could not be filed and investigated. He submitted that when police had once investigated the matter and did not find the case against the petitioner and others and submitted challan only against Bachusingh, the complainant should have either submitted protest petition before the learned Magistrate or should have taken other steps as provided under Code of Criminal Procedure. He could not have misused the process of court by compelling the investigating agency to investigate the same case. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that Smt. Vidhyadevi is the Sarpanch of Village Panchayat Bargha where the petitioner and Nihal Singh are the Panchas. They have some grievance regarding the construction of Panchayat Bhawan. In order to settle this score, another FIR was lodged which is not allowed to stand under the provisions of law. He was cited 1996 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 245 (Harbanshlal & ors Vs. State of Rajasthan & ors) , in which second FIR was quashed because the first FIR was pending and it was observed that no subsequent FIR could be lodged on same facts.