Ajay Kumar Yadav vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others

A.F.R.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5798 of 2026
Ajay Kumar Yadav
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) : Awadh Bihari Pandey
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Sharad Kumar Srivastava
Court No. - 90
HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. None is present for opposite party nos. 2 to 4 despite sufficient service.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the F.I.R. of Case
Crime No. 314 of 2018, lodged on 26.10.2018 under Sections 228 and 323
I.P.C. and Section 7 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013, is
completely incorrect, false, and an abuse of the process of law.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that regarding the
alleged incident dated 25.10.2018, the F.I.R. was wrongly registered. He
submitted that F.I.R. No. 312 of 2018 regarding the said incident dated
25.10.2018 had already been registered at Police Station Kotwali, District
Kanpur Nagar on 25.10.2018 at 23:50 hours under Sections 147, 323, and
500 I.P.C.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that two F.I.Rs
cannot be registered for the same incident. The F.I.R. registered first is the
primary F.I.R., and the investigation should continue under it regardless of
the facts or evidence collected during the course of the investigation. In
contrast, the present F.I.R. is a second F.I.R. for the same alleged incident.
Thus, it is an abuse of the process of law and is unsustainable. He relied on
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in T.T. Antony v. State of
. Paragraph Nos. 19, 20, and 21 of the said
Kerala , 2001 AIR SC 2637

CRLA No. 5798 of 2026
2
judgment are quoted below:
"19. An information given under sub-section (1) of Section 154 of Cr.P.C.
is commonly known as First Information Report (FIR) though this term is
not used in the Code. It is a very important document. And as its nick
name 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 into motion and marks the commencement of the
investigation which ends up with the formation of opinion under Section
169 or 170 of Cr.P.C ., as the case may be, and forwarding of a police
report under Section 173 of 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 of 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 of 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 of 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 FIR and the same cannot be in conformity
with the scheme of the Cr.P.C . Take a case where an FIR mentions
cognizable offence under Section 307 or 326 I.P.C . and the investigating
agency learns during the investigation or receives a fresh information
that the victim died, no fresh FIR 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 FIR is the proper course to adopt. Let us
consider a different situation in which H having killed W, his wife,
informs the police that she is killed by an unknown person or knowing
that W is killed by his mother or sister, H owns up the responsibility and
during investigation the truth is detected; it does not require filing of

CRLA No. 5798 of 2026
3
fresh FIR against H - the real offender-who can be arraigned in the
report under Section 173(2) or 173(8) of Cr.P.C ., as the case may be. It is
of course permissible for the investigating officer to send up a report to
the concerned Magistrate even earlier that investigation is being directed
against the person suspected to be the accused.
20. The scheme of the Cr.P.C . is that an officer in charge of a Police
Station has to commence investigation as provided in Section 156 or 157
of Cr.P.C . on the basis of entry of the First Information Report, on
coming to know of the commission of a cognizable offence. On completion
of investigation and on the basis of evidence collected he has to form
opinion under Section 169 or 170 of Cr.P.C ., as the case may be, and
forward his report to the concerned Magistrate under Section 173(2) of
Cr.P.C. However, even after filing such a report if he comes into
possession of further information or material, he need not register a fresh
FIR, he is empowered to make further investigation, normally with the
leave of the court, and where during further investigation he collects
further evidence, oral or documentary, he is obliged to forward the same
with one or more further reports; this is the import of sub-section (8) of
Section 173 Cr.P.C.
21. From the above discussion it follows that under the scheme of the
provisions of Sections 154 , 155 , 156 , 157 , 162 , 169 , 170 and 173 of
Cr.P.C. only the earliest or the first information in regard to the
commission of a cognizable offence satisfies the requirements of Section
154 Cr.P.C. Thus there can be no second F.I.R. and consequently there
can be no fresh investigation on receipt of every subsequent information
in respect of the same cognizable offence or the same occurrence or
incident giving rise to one or more cognizable offences. On receipt of
information about a cognizable offence or an incident giving rise to a
cognizable offence or offences and on entering the F.I.R. in the station
house diary, the officer in charge of a Police Station has to investigate
not merely the cognizable offence reported in the FIR but also other
connected offences found to have been committed in the course of the
same transaction or the same occurrence and file one or more reports as
provided in Section 173 of the Cr.P.C."

CRLA No. 5798 of 2026
4
6. Learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the criminal appeal and
submitted that there are different perspectives regarding the registration of
the F.I.R. The incident took place inside the courtroom and directly caused a
disturbance to the proceedings of the court. There is no illegality in
registering the second F.I.R. Therefore, the criminal appeal is liable to be
dismissed.
7. The first F.I.R., registered as Case Crime No. 312 of 2018 under Sections
147, 323, and 500 I.P.C., was lodged against the appellant, Ajay Kumar
Yadav and 100–150 unknown advocates. The said F.I.R. was lodged by
Manoj, son of Ram Naresh Chaudhary. He stated in the F.I.R. that the
appellant was in judicial custody pursuant to an order passed by the learned
Sessions Judge in connection with a bail application of the year 2018 before
ACMM-II Kanpur Nagar ( Manoj alias Gittak v. State of U.P. , Case Crime
No. 0179 of 2017, under Sections 387 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station
Kalyanpur, Kanpur Nagar). It was stated by the complainant that the
complainant in that case, Ajay Kumar Yadav (Advocate), called 100–150
advocates wearing black coats via a WhatsApp call. They all entered the
courtroom and severely beat the accused, causing him injuries, which
amounts to serious contempt of court. Hence, he prayed that the accused be
medically examined, contempt of court proceedings be initiated against
them, and a case be registered so that the lives of the accused persons could
be saved. The viral messages on WhatsApp and Facebook were cited as
sufficient proof. On this basis, the F.I.R. was registered.
8. Conversely, the present F.I.R. No. 314 of 2018 regarding the same
incident dated 25.10.2018 was registered at Police Station Kotwali
Commissionerate, Kanpur Nagar on 26.10.2018 at 12:56 hours under
Section 7 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act and Sections 323 and 228
I.P.C. It was lodged by the complainant/informant, Pushpendra Singh, Court
Moharrim. The said F.I.R. was also registered against Advocate Ajay Yadav
and other advocates.
9. It is alleged in the contents of the said F.I.R. that the accused persons
Manoj alias Gittak, Om Prakash alias Kariya, Shiv Prakash, and Birju were
taken into judicial custody as per orders passed by the learned Sessions
Judge in Case Crime No. 179 of 2017 under Sections 387 and 506 I.P.C.,

CRLA No. 5798 of 2026
5
Police Station Kalyanpur, District Kanpur Nagar. At around 15:00 hours,
several advocates, along with the complainant in that case, Sri Ajay Kumar
Yadav (Advocate), entered the courtroom and created a severe disturbance.
The informant reported the matter to the learned Presiding Officer of the
court, under whose orders the Police Outpost Incharge of the court premises
entered the courtroom along with police force. Even thereafter, the crowd
and the advocates could not be brought under control, and they assaulted the
accused persons who were in judicial custody, inflicting serious injuries.
This created a stampede in the courtroom, disrupting official court business.
Significant efforts were made by the informant, Court Moharrim Sunil
Chaubey, Pairokar Kushalpal, and the Incharge of Police Outpost Kotwali to
save the accused, but Advocate Ajay Yadav and other advocates went away.
Hence, it was prayed that an F.I.R. be registered and appropriate proceedings
be initiated against them under orders of the court of ACMM-II Kanpur
Nagar and the Incharge should register the F.I.R. immediately and
commence legal proceedings. The document was signed on 25.10.2018
under the seal of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar, by
Pushpendra Singh, Court Moharrim.
10. The present second F.I.R. was lodged by the Court Moharrim of the
competent court. The actions of the appellant, Ajay Kumar Yadav, and
several other advocates are of an exceptional and serious nature, causing
disturbance and obstruction to court proceedings, and must be viewed
strictly.
11. It was held by a Division Bench of this Court in
Adarsh Kumar Tripathi
v. State of U.P. and Others , (2005) 53 ACC 292 , concerning Sections 154,
161, and 162 Cr.P.C., that the registration of a second F.I.R. is not barred if
the subsequent complaint reveals a larger conspiracy than the one referred to
in the previous complaint.
12. Furthermore, a Three-Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash , 2005 SCC (Cri.) 211 , held that the decision
of the two-Judge Bench in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala
, 2001 AIR SC
2637 , was doubted. It observed that prohibiting the registration of a case and
investigation into a counter-version would lead to serious consequences. It
was further noted that if the real offender takes the first opportunity to lodge

CRLA No. 5798 of 2026
6
a false report and gets it registered by the jurisdictional police, it would be a
travesty of justice if the aggrieved victim could not bring forward his version
of the incident.
13. Similarly, this Court held in Anurag Tripathi v. State of U.P. and
, regarding Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., that where
Others , (2005) 52 ACC 563
an F.I.R. is registered by the police against unknown persons, an application
under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. naming specific accused persons in respect of
the same incident is not barred. The rejection of such an application under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was held to be manifestly erroneous.
14. In the present case, there is completely different perspectives of the
courtroom incident have emerged. The lodging of a second F.I.R. is not
absolutely barred under law.
15. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the proceedings of the
court were jeopardized and the majesty of the law was challenged. Hence,
the second F.I.R. was lodged from that distinct perspective.
16. Accordingly, the criminal appeal lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.
(Abdul Shahid,J.)
September 1, 2026
K.K. Maurya
Digitally signed by :-
KAMLESH KUMAR MAURYA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad