Police Not Barred From Registering Subsequent FIR On Same Set Of Allegations As In Complaint Already Filed Before Magistrate: Rajasthan HC
The Rajasthan High Court explained the ambit of Section 233 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 210 of the CrPC) and held that the police officials are not barred from registering a subsequent FIR on the same set of allegations but the Magistrate would have to stay the further proceedings in the complaint, which has been instituted prior to the registration of the FIR.
The accused petitioners approached the High Court assailing an FIR registered against him under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 409 & 120-B IPC and Sections 7, 13(1)(A), 13(1)(C)(D) & 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The Single-Judge Bench of Justice Arun Monga said, “All that is mandated procedurally as per the section is that the learned Magistrate shall stay the further proceedings in the complaint, which has been instituted prior to the registration of the FIR so as to await the outcome of the inquiry/investigation by the Investigating Officer as envisaged under Section 173 of the Code.”
Senior Advocate Jagmal Singh Choudhary represented the Petitioner while PP Vikram Singh Rajpurohit represented the Respondent.
The complainant submitted a complaint before ACB, Ajmer against the then Chairman (petitioner No.1) of Gram Seva Sahkari Samiti Soodwad and Chairperson (petitioner No.2), Manager (petitioner No.9) of Gram Seva Sahkari Nimbola Biswa and other petitioners stating therein that they had indulged in serious corruption. They sanctioned loans to their family members based on forged documents, even though those individuals didn’t have agricultural lands in their names. Later, they granted the benefit of the loan waiving scheme of the government to those persons.
Further, Ram Chandra (petitioner No.1) and Manju Devi (petitioner No.2) by giving false affidavits and concealing the fact of having a third child, Manju Devi became the Chairperson of the society. It came out in inquiry that the accused petitioners while misusing their power entered into criminal conspiracy with private persons and benefit of loan waiver scheme was given to such persons. It was alleged that the petitioners caused loss to the government fund of Rs.8,24,383.
It was the case of the petitioners that two criminal proceedings had been instituted against them as earlier in the year 2020, one Manohar Lal (brother of complainant Nainu Ram) had also filed a complaint against the petitioners for the same set of allegations as levelled in the present FIR. During pendency of the said complaint, complainant Manohar Lal expired and the present complainant Nainu Ram was substituted as complainant in the said case being the brother of original complainant.
The Bench noticed that primarily the challenge to the FIRwas pivoted on the ground that based on the same set of allegations and the facts involved in this case, earlier a complaint was filed by the informant of the FIR, in which, the Magistrate had already taken cognizance and the trial was going on.
Reference was made to Section 233 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 210 of the Cr.P.C.) which describes the procedure to be followed when there is a complaint case and police investigation in respect of the same offence.
“A perusal of the above leaves no manner of doubt that even if the complaint proceedings have already been initiated and the police officials receive a report/complaint on the same set of allegations they are not barred from registering a subsequent FIR. All that is mandated procedurally as per the section ibid is that the learned Magistrate shall stay the further proceedings in the complaint, which has been instituted prior to the registration of the FIR so as to await the outcome of the inquiry/investigation by the Investigating Officer as envisaged under Section 173 of the Code”, the Bench held.
Thus , the Bench disposed of the petition with a direction that the further proceedings in the private complaint instituted by the complainant, who subsequently lodged the FIR, shall remain stayed subject to the outcome of the inquiry/investigation to be conducted by the Investigating Officer in the present FIR in accordance with law.
Cause Title: Ram Chandra Bisu v. State Of Rajasthan [Neutral Citation: [2024:RJ-JD:41362]
Appearance:
Petitioners: Senior Advocate Jagmal Singh Choudhary & Advocate Pradeep Choudhary
Respondents: PP Vikram Singh Rajpurohit
