Indrajeet Chaudhary vs The State of Bihar and Another

Ghanshyam Prasad, J.—This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the F.I.R, of Khagaria (Chitragupt Nagar) PS. Case No. 352 of 2006 registered u/s 409 I.P.C, on the basis of fardbeyan lodged by Deputy Collector, Nazarat, Khagaria. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the State.

It appears from the record that this petitioner was posted at Khagaria Collectorate as Nazir from 2002 to 2005. Later on, the petitioner was transferred from Khagaria Nazarat to Block Office. It was found that during that period i.e. from 23.3.2005 to 3.3.2005, this petitioner had misappropriated Government money and also committing omission and commission in maintenance of records etc. of the Nazarat. Accordingly, on 25.6.2005, the then Deputy Collector, Nazarat, Khagaria lodged a fardbeyan before Chitragupt Nagar police station upon which the police registered case against this petitioner bearing Case No. 326 of 2005. The police registered case and began to investigate the same. However, after more than one year again, the then Deputy Collector, Nazarat, Khagaria lodged a second F.I.R. before Chitragupt Nagar police station for misappropriation of Government money from the period 9.4.2004 to 3.3.2005 upon which the police registered a second F.I.R, bearing No. 352 of 2006.

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that both the police cases arise out of the same occurrence. The first F.I.R. was lodged in the year 2005 and the present F.I.R, in question was lodged after more than one year for almost the same offence and occurrence. Therefore, the second F.I.R. is not maintainable in the eye of law. It can only be treated as the statement falling u/s 161/162 of the Cr.P.C. Therefore, no investigation can be made on the basis of subsequent information. In support of it, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court reported in T.T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala and Others, and 2007(1) PLJR 590.

Considered the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused both the F.I.R. as also decision cited above. It appears that the first F.I.R. which was lodged on 25.6.2005 bears almost same allegation with regard to misappropriation of Government money and committing omission and commission in discharge of the official duty from the period 23.3.2003 to 3.3.2005 while the petitioner was posted as Nazir of Khagaria Collectorate. The police registered the case bearing No. 326 of 2005. The second F.I.R. which is Annexure-1 would also go to show that the then Deputy Collector, Nazarat, Khagaria lodged another F.I.R. against the petitioner for almost same allegation with different amounts for misappropriation of Government money and omission and commission in discharge of the official duty from the period 9.4.2004 to 3.3.2005. The period mentioned in the F.I.R. is apparently covered under the period mentioned in first F.I.R.

It is needless to say that the apex court as well as this Hon''ble High Court in several decisions have held that the second F.I.R. is not maintainable in the eye of law for the same offence and it can only be treated as a subsequent material and statements under sections 161/162 of the Cr.P.C. It has further been held that no separate investigation can be made on the basis of subsequent fardbeyan lodged for the same occurrence. It is barred under the law.

From the above discussions, it is quite clear that the Annexure-1 is second F.I.R, in the eye of law. Therefore, the police has no jurisdiction to register a separate case on the basis of the second F.I.R. and proceed with the investigation. It is legally barred. Thus, having regard to the facts and circumstances, this application is allowed and the impugned F.I.R. is hereby quashed. However, the materials collected by the police in course of investigation of the second F.I.R. can be clubbed with the first F.I.R. upon which the investigation is still going on.