JUDGMENT
D.K. Sinha, J.
Page 1739
1. The petitioners herein have preferred this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the F.I.R. of Chauparan P.S. Case No. 85/2005 lodged on 22.5.2005 corresponding to G.R.No. 1347/05 arising out of the said police case pending in the Court of C.J.M., Hazaribagh.
2. The brief fact of the case, as is evident from the statement of the informant Abdul Rauf presented before the Chauparan Police in Chauparan P.S. Case No. 85/05 is that two persons namely Md. Usman and Md. Suleman @ Sule were forcibly taken by as many as 18 named accused persons and few others, variously armed with deadly weapons, such as sticks, rods and axes. Both the persons were tied in a pole of electric Transformer, situated near the house of one Bhikhari Rana and were assaulted by fists and slaps by the named accused and others. In the meantime, one Uma Shankar Akela of Chauparan arrived at the place of occurrence, who also assaulted them with kicks and abetted the villagers, who were present there, to commit their murder. On such abetment the accused persons started assaulting them indiscriminately with sticks, rods & axe, as a result of which the victim Md. Usman sustained grievous injuries and became unconscious. The another victim Md. Suleman @ Sule also sustained grievous injury. In the meantime, Chauparan Police arrived at the place of occurrence, attempted to take the victims in their custody in spite of resistance made by the accused and only on the arrival of the Senior Police Officer with the Additional Police Force, both the victims were removed to Chauparan for their better treatment but the injured Md. Usman succumbed his injury. It was alleged that all the named accused persons with the intention to commit murder assaulted Md. Usman and Md. Suleman @ Sule which resulted into death of Md. Usman.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the informant of Chauparan P.S. Case No. 85/05 Md. Abdul Rauf presented his written report to the Chauparan Police on 22.5.05 for the occurrence which took place on 21.5.2005 at 11.30 A.M., the F.I.R. was registered on 22.5.2005 and it was sent to the C.J.M., Hazaribagh which was received on 24.5.2005.
4. He further submitted that prior to the Chauparan P.S. Case No. 85/05, the police had registered Chauparan P.S. Case No. 84/05 on 21.5.2005 at 16.30 hours with respect to the same set of occurrence for the offence under Sections 147, 342, 353, 504, 120B I.P.C. in which actual fact was narrated in the self statement of the informant Gajanand Singh, Sub-Inspector of Police, posted at Chauparan Police Station that when he received the information at about 12.30 hours on 21.5.05 that two thieves were apprehended by the villagers and were being brutally assaulted by them, he along with Police Force came to village Amjhar and found the information true. When he attempted to remove both the victims Md. Usman and Md. Suleman @ Sule, his act was resisted by 4 named accused persons of village Amjhar on the explanation that these two victims had committed murder of their father Nathu Yadav by cutting his neck and suspicion was raised also against Abdul Rauf, an informant of Chauparan P.S. Case No. 85/05, about his complicity in the said murder and that Abdul Rauf could not be arrested till date by the police. It was further stated that after some time one Uma Shankar Akela, a leader of Samajwadi Party also arrived there who tried to pacify the villagers but of no avail and on the information given to Page 1740 the Senior Police Officer on cell phone, the local Block Development Officer, S.D.O. and S.D.P.O. arrived at the scene and took both the victims in their custody. The victims were removed to Chauparan where no Doctor was available and after some time the victim Md. Usman succumbed his injury and the another Md. Suleman was removed to the local Lifeline Hospital and from there he was taken to Sadar Hospital, Hazaribagh for better treatment. The case was registered against 4 named accused persons who are the petitioners herein and 20/25 unknown villagers for the offence under Sections 147, 342, 353, 504 I.P.C.
5. Learned Counsel further pointed out that much prior to the institution of Chauparan Police Case No. 84/05 on 21.5.05 and Chauparan Police Case No. 85/05 on 22.5.05 one Chauparan Police Case No. 67/05 was lodged on 29.4.05 in respect of commission of murder of Nathu Yadav who was the father of the petitioners Nos. 1 to 4 wherein Md. Abdul Rauf i.e. the informant of Chauparan Police Case No. 85/05 was a suspect but no step was taken by the police to arrest him in spite of the materials in the case diary. The witnesses as contained in paragraph Nos. 14 & 15 of the case diary of Chauparan Police Case No. 67/05 have narrated that they had seen Md. Abdul Rauf (informant) Md. Usman (since deceased) and Md. Soleman (victim) returning with other accused persons from graveyard at about 4 A.M. where Nathu Yadav was murdered. Nathu Yadav had seen them committing theft of calves of Mohan Yadav for slaughtering and Nathu Yadav had disclosed their such act of theft to Mohan Yadav as well as his wife to which a Panchayati was scheduled to be held on such issue on the same day on 29.4.2005, but prior to such Panchayati Nathu Yadav was murdered by these persons including others.
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted, that as a matter of fact the F.I.R. vide Chauparan P.S. Case No. 84/05 lodged by the police on 21.05.05 was the original F.I.R., first point in time, in relation to the occurrence which took place on 21.5.05, therefore, the subsequent F.I.R. Vide Chauparan P.S. Case No. 85/05 based upon the written report of Md. Abdul Rauf of village Amjhar is nothing but concoction made after due deliberation and consultation implicating innocent persons including the petitioners which has got no sanction in the eyes of law brought about in respect of same set of facts for which Chauparan P.S. Case No. 84/05 was lodged first point in time. It requires conscious consideration that Chauparan P.S. Case No. 85/05 was lodged on subsequent day on 22.5.05 by the informant Md. Abdul Rauf who was a suspect in Chauparan P.S. Case No. 67/05 in connection with the murder of the father of the petitioners Nos. 1 to 4 herein and therefore, written statement presented by Md. Abdul Rauf in Chauparan P.S. Case No. 85/05 is nothing but a statement of a witness under Section 162 of the Cr.P.C., brought about on personal grudge to save his skin, personal vengeance and after inordinate delay. Both the F.I.R.s. were received in the Court of C.J.M., Hazaribagh after 3/2 days on 24.5.06.
7. Learned Counsel for the petitioners urged that when Chauparan P.S. Case No. 84/05 was instituted on the self statement of the Sub-Inspector of Police, Chauparan Police Station on 21.5.05 for a cognizable offence the subsequent F.I.R. vide Chauparan P.S. Case No. 85/05 for the same set of occurrence is not sustainable and against the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Page 1741
8. Reliance has been placed upon the decision . The Apex Court in T.T. Antony V. State of Kerala held,
An information given under Sub-section (1) of Section 154 Cr.P.C. is commonly known as first information report (F.I.R.) though this term is not used in the Code. It is a very important document. And as its nickname suggests it is the earliest and the first information of a cognizable offence recorded by an officer in charge of a police station. It sets the criminal law in motion and marks the commencement of the investigation which ends up with the formation of opinion under Section 169 of 170 Cr.P.C., as the case may be, and forwarding of a police report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. It is quite possible and it happens not infrequently that more informations than one are given to a police officer in charge of a police station in respect of the same incident involving one or more than one cognizable offences. In such a case he need not enter every one of them in the station house diary and this is implied in Section 154 Cr.P.C. Apart from a vague information by a phone call or a cryptic telegram, the information first entered in the station house diary, kept for this purpose, by a police officer in charge of a police station is the first information report F.I.R. postulated by Section 154 Cr.P.C. All other informations made orally or in writing after the commencement of the investigation into the cognizable offence disclosed from the facts mentioned in the first information report and entered in the station house diary by the police officer or such other cognizable offences as may come to his notice during the investigation, will be statements falling under Section 162 Cr.P.C. No such information/statement can properly be treated as an F.I.R. and entered in the station house diary again, as it would in effect be a second F.I.R. and the same cannot be in conformity with the scheme of Cr.P.C. Take a case where an F.I.R. mentions cognizable offence under Section 307 or 326 I.P.C. and the investigating agency learns during the investigation or receives fresh information that the victim died, no fresh F.I.R. under Section 302 I.P.C. need be registered which will be irregular; in such a case alteration of the provision of law in the first F.I.R. is the proper course to adopt.
9. Finally it has been submitted that the subsequent F.I.R. vide Chauparan P.S. Case No. 85/05 for the same cause as well as set of action is arbitrary, illegal, injust, improper without jurisdiction and against the established principles of criminal jurisprudence and therefore, it is liable to be quashed.
10. From careful perusal of the entire materials on the record, appreciation of Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure as well as the proposition of law, referred to hereinabove, I find that the Chauparan P.S. case No. 85/05 was lodged on 22.5.05 for the same set of occurrence, but narrated in different manner implicating a number of persons including the petitioners though for same set of occurrence Chauparan P.S. Case No. 84/05 was lodged in first point in time on 21.5.05 on police report whereas Chauparan P.S. Case No. 85/05 was lodged on subsequent day on 22.5.05 leading to involvement of as many as 18 named accused wherein one of the victims succumbed and another sustained grievous injury.
Section 154(1) Code of Criminal Procedure speaks,
Every information relating to the commission to a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by Page 1742 him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf.
11. The principal object of the First Information Report from the point of view of the informant is to set the criminal law in motion and from the point of view of the Investigating Authorities to obtain information about the alleged criminal activity so as to be able to take suitable steps for tracing and bringing to book the guilty persons. In order to constitute any information as F.I.R, it must be relating to the commission of a cognizable offence and it must not be vague but must be definite enough to enable the police to start investigation.
12. The subsequent F.I.R. for the same set of occurrence after inordinate delay registered as Chauparan P.S. Case No. 85/05 gives rise to suspicion to look for the possible motive and its effect on the trustworthiness in the background that the informant of the said case was a suspect in Chauparan P.S. Case No. 67/05 which is alleged to be the genesis of Chauparan P.s. Case No. 84/05 or 85/05.
13. In the facts and circumstances, the written report presented by the informant Abdul Rauf in Chauparan P.S. case No. 85/05 lodged on 22.05.05 after already institution of Chauparan P.S. Case No. 84/05 on 21.05.05, first point in time, for the same set of occurrence shall be deemed to be the statement of a witness under Section 162(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and shall not be treated to be the First Information Report received by the Police.
14. Section 162 (1) of the Cr.P.C. speaks,
No statement made by any person to a police officer in the course of an investigation under this Chapter, shall, if reduced to writing, be signed by the person making it; nor shall any such statement or any record thereof, whether in a police diary or otherwise, or any part of such statement or record, be used for any purpose, save as hereinafter provided, at any inquiry or trial in respect of any offence under investigation at the time when such statement was made:
Provided that when any witness is called for the prosecution in such inquiry or trial whose statement has been reduced into writing as aforesaid, any part of his statement, if duly proved, may be used by the accused, and with the permission of the Court, by the prosecution, to contradict such witness in the manner provided by Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872); and when any part of such statement is so used, any part thereof may also be used in the re-examination of such witness, but for the purpose only of explaining any matter referred to in his cross-examination.
15. Under the facts and circumstances, considering the procedural law as contained in Chapter XII of the Cr.P.C., proposition of law as laid down by the Apex Court in T.T. Antony’s case (supra) I find that the subsequent F.I.R. for the same set of occurrence calls for interference under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and accordingly F.I.R. in relation to Chauparan P.S. Case No. 85/05 registered as G.R.No. 1347/05 pending in the Court of C.J.M., Hazaribagh being not sustainable in law, it is quashed with the liberty to the Investigating Officer to make a detailed Page 1743 investigation in Chauparan P.S. Case No. 84/05, taking into account the veracity of the written report of Md. Abdul Rauf under Section 162(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
16. Let a copy of this order be sent to the S.P., Hazaribagh.
17. With the aforesaid observations, this petition is allowed.