KARI CHOUDHARYversusMOST. SITA DEVI AND ORS.

A                                KARI CHOUDHARY
                                           v.
                            MOST. SITA DEVI AND ORS.

                                DECEMBER II, 2001

B                     [K.T. THOMAS AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.]

          Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 : Sections 154, 173(2) and (8).

         ·Penal Code, 1860: Sections 18, 211, 302/34.

c         First Information Report-Lodging of two different FJRs-Permissibility
    of-FIR lodged by mother-in-law-Report that daughter-in-law killed by some
    persons-lnvestigation-Police finding that version furnished by mother-in-
    /aw was false-Report sent by police to Magistrate--Registration of another
    FIR. against mother-in-law-Validity of-Held, lnvestigating Agency is not
D   precluded from further investigation in respect of an offence in spite of sending
    a report under Section 173(2) Ct.P.C.

          Respondent No.l lodged an FIR stating that that a few persons from
    ontside had sneaked into the bedroom of her daughter-in-law and mur-
    dered her by strangulation on 27.6.1998. During investigation police found
E   that the version furnished by respondent was false and that the murder
    was committed pursnant to conspiracy hatched by respondent No. 1 and
    her other daughter-in-law. Consequently police sent a report on 30.11.1998
    to the Magistrate and registered another FIR. 111e respondent's protest
    complaint that the police report dated 30.11.1998 was wholly unsustainable
    and that persons arrayed in the first FIR were real culprits was rejected by
F
    Chief Judicial Magistrate. Revision preferred by first respondent was
    allowed by High Court which directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate to
    conduct an enquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
    1973. Thereafter on the basis of investigation conducted, the respondent,
    her two other daughters-in-law, son and a few others were charged under
G   Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. The respondent moved the High
    Court and a Single Judge of the High Court quashed the criminal proceed-
    ings on the premise that there was double jeopardy against first-respond-
    ent. The brother of the deceased filed appeal before this Court challenging
    the order of the High Court. On behalf of the respondent it was contended
H   that once the proceedings initiated under the first FIR ended in a final
                                          588
          KARI CHOUDHARY v. MOST: SITA DEVI [THOMAS, l.]                 589
report the police had no authority to register a second FIR.                     A
      Allowing the appeal and setting aside the impugned order, the Court

      HELD : 1.1. There cannot be two FIRs against the same accused in
respect of the same case. But when there are rival versions in respect of the
same episode, they would normally take the shape of two different FIRs B
and investigation can be carried on under both of them by the same
investigating agency. Even that apart, the report submitted by the court
styling it as subsequent FIR need be considered as an information submit·
ted to the court regarding the new discovery made by the police during
investigation that persons not named in earlier FIR are the real culprits. C
To quash this said proceeding merely on the ground that final report had .
been laid in earlier FIR is, to say the least, too technical. The ultimate
object of every investigation is to find out whether the offences alleged
have been committed and, it so, who have committed it. [592-C-E]

      1.2. Even otherwise the investigating agency is not precluded from         D
further investigation in respect of an offence inspite of forwarding a report
under sub-section (2) of Section 173 on a pervious occasion. This is clear
from Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. [592-F]

      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1280
of 2001.                                                                         E
       From the Judgment and Order dated 28.3.2001 of the Patna High Court
in Crl. M. No. 28795 of 1998.

     A. Sharan, S. Chandrashekhar, Sri Prakash and Irshad Ahmad, for the
Appellant.                                                                       F

      Ambhoj Kr. Sinha for the Respondents Nos. I, 3-5.

      B.B. Singh for the Respondent Nos. 8-9.

      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                                 G
      THOMAS, J. Leave granted.

      A mother-in-law figured as the complainant in a .c_ase of culpable homi-
cide of her daughter-in-law, but eventually she. was transposed as one of the
delinquent offenders of the said murder. The High Court has now stalled the      H
    590                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS                (2001] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A   case against her on the ground of her first complaint. This was unreconcilable
    to the brother of the deceased and hence he has come to this Court challenging
    the said order of the High Court.

           Sugnia Devi is the unfortunate victim who was killed on the night of
    27 .6.1988. About 10 years prior to her death she was married to Ram Iatan
B   Choudhary, one of the four sons of the first respondent Sita Devi. She remained
    childless. On the day which followed her. death the first respondent Sita Devi
    lodged an FIR with Babu Barbi Police Station alleging that a few persons from
    outside had sneaked into the bedroom of Sugnia Devi and murdered her by
    strangulation. FIR No. 135 was registered on the basis of the said complaint
c   and investigation was commenced thereafter.

           During the progress of investigation the police formed an opinion that
    the murder of Sugnia Devi had taken place in a manner totally different from
    the version furnished by the first respondent in the FIR. Police found that the
    murder was committed pursuant to a conspiracy hatched by her mother-in-law
D   Sita Devi and her other daughters-in-law besides others. So the police sent a
    report to the court on 30.11.1998 stating that the allegations in FIR No. 135
    were false. Police continued with the investigation after informing the court
    that they have registered another FIR as FIR No. 209/89.

           First respondent Sita Devi filed a protest complaint before the Chief
E   Judicial Magistrate alleging that the police report dated 30.11.1998 is wholly
    unsustainable and reiterating that the persons arrayed in FIR No. 135 are the
    real culprits. The Chief Judicial Magistrate rejected the protest complaint as per
    his order dated 28.8.1999. First respondent challenged the said order in a
    revision filed before the High Court. The said revision happened to be allowed
F   on 7 .2.2000 and the Chief Judicial Magistrate was directed to conduct an
    inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

            The police force proceeded with the investigation on the new discovery
    that Sugnia Devi was murdered by some other persons and finally concluded
    the investigation and filed a charge sheet on 31.3.2000. In the said chargesheet
G   first respondent Sita Devi, her two other daughters-in-law, her son Ram Ashish
    Choudhary and a few others were arraigned for the offence under Section 302
    read with Section 34 of the !PC. The Chief Judicial Magistrate before whom
    the charge-sheet was laid committed the said case to the court of sessions.
    Thereafter, we are told, the sessions judge framed a charge against the accused
H   so arraigned for the aforesaid offence.
           KARI CHOUDHARY v. MOST. SITA DEVI [THOMAS, J.]                    591
      In the meanwhile the first respondent moved the High Court once again           A
for quashing the criminal proceedings lodged against her and others. A single
Judge of the High Court of Patna upheld her contention and quashed the
criminal proceedings as per the impugned judgment. Thus appellant and other
accused are now totally absolved from the murder charge even without con-
ducting any trial into the said case. That order of the High Court is under
                                                                                      B
challenge in this Court now.

       The learned single judge adopted the said course on the premises that
there is otherwise double jeopardy as against first respondent. The reasoning
of the learned judge is this : When the police filed the earlier report holding
that the allegations in FIR No. 135 were false the magistrate took cognizance         c
of offence under Sections 188 and 211 of the !PC against her and that order
of the magistrate was one quashed. The following observation of the single
Judge would reveal how he advanced the said reasoning :

         "When once recommendation of lodging of false case and cognizance
         thereof have been set aside by a court then there is no scope to proceed     D
         with the same allegation that too by the police officer making himself
         a party which is nothing but a double jeopardy."

       Both said that the order by which cognizance of the offences under
Sections 188 and 211 of the !PC was taken had, in fact, related to a different
case and not in the case which covered FIR No. 135. Nonetheless learned               E
counsel for the first respondent Sita Devi made an effort to sustain the order
of the High Court on the premises that the order of the magistrate (accepting
the final report in FIR No. 135) was quashed even otherwise and hence a
second final report cannot be filed by the police albeit against other accused.
In this context we find it necessary to extract the order passed by the High          F
Court in respect of the proceedings of the magistrate which ended by the order
dated 28.8.1999 accepting the repmt of the police in the case which covered
FIR No. 135, The order reads thus :

           "The magistrate is required to examine the complainant on solemn
           affirmation and then proceed in accordance with law. The learned           G
           magistrate without following the procedure has passed the impugned
           order. Accordingly, the order dated 28.8.1999 is hereby quashed and
           the learned judicial magistrate is directed to dispose of the protest
       ':·.petition filed by the petitioner in accordance with Jaw and in the light
          'of the observations made hereinabove."                                     H
    592                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2001] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A          The result of the said factual development is this. The complainant Sita
    Devi in FIR No. 135 is allowed to persist with her complaint despite the
    conclusion reached by the police that the said complaint was false. But that
    course adopted by the court cannot disable the police to continue to investigate
    into the offence of murder of Sugnia Devi and to reach the final conclusion
    regarding the real culprit of her murder. The police completed their investiga·
B
    tion only when the charge-sheet was finally laid on 31.3.2000 against the first
    respondent Sita Devi and others. The said case has to be legally adjudicated
    for which trial by the sessions court is indispensable.

           Learned counsel adopted an alternative contention that once the proceed-
c   ing initiated under FIR No. 135 ended in a final report the police had no
    authority to register a second FIR and number it as FIR 208. Of course the legal
    position is that there cannot be two FIRs against the same accused in respect
    of the same case. But when there are rival versions in respect of the same
    episode, they would normally take the shape of two different F!Rs and inves·
    ligation can be carried on under both of them by the same investigating agency.
D   Even that apart, the report submitted by the court styling it as FIR No. 208 of
    1998 need be considered as an information submitted to the court regarding the
    new discovery made by the police during investigation that persons not named
    in FIR No. 135 are the real culprits. To quash the said proceeding merely on
    the ground that final report had been laid in FIR No. 135 is, to say the least,
E   too technical. The ultimate object of every investigation is to find out whether
    the offences alleged have been committed and, if so, who have committed it.

           Even otherwise the investigating agency is not precluded from further
    investigation in respect of an offence in spite of forwarding a report under sub·
    section (2) of Section 173 on a previous occasion. This is clear from Section
F   173(8) of the Code.

          Thus; from any standpoint the impugned order cannot be sustained. We,
    therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order.

    T.N.A.                                                         Appeal allowed.
G