Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3
CASE NO.:
Appeal (crl.) 1280 of 2001
PETITIONER:
KARICHOUDHARY
RESPONDENT:
MOST. SITA DEVI AND ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/12/2001
BENCH:
K.T. THOMAS & S.N. PHUKAN
JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
2001 Supp(5) SCR 588
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by THOMAS, J. Leave granted.
A mother-in-law figured as the complainant in a case 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
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 Jatan
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 Barhi 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 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 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
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 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 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 IPC. The Chief Judicial
Magistrate before whom the charge-sheet was laid committed the said case to
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3
the court of sessions. Thereafter, we are told, the sessions judge framed a
charge against the accused so arraigned for the aforesaid offence. In the
meanwhile the first respondent moved the High Court once again 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
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 of offence under Sections 188 and 211 of the IPC 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 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 IPC was taken had, in fact, related to a different case
and not in the case which covered FIR No. 135. Nonetheless learned 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 Court in respect of the proceedings of the magistrate which
ended by the order dated 28.8.1999 accepting the report 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 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 law and in the light of the observations made
hereinabove." 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-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-ing
initiated under FIR Ho. 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 FIRs
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 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, too technical.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3
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 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,