Can't Have Two FIRs For Same Accusation, Trial Court Didn't Consider Negative Report Before Cognizance: Rajasthan HC Exonerates Man Of Charges

Post By 24law
February 21, 2025

Pranav B Prem

In a significant ruling, the Jodhpur bench of the Rajasthan High Court has quashed the proceedings against a man who was booked in two separate FIRs for the same allegations. The Court reiterated the settled legal position that two cases cannot run simultaneously for the same set of accusations and also criticized the trial court for failing to consider the negative final report before taking cognizance.

Background of the Case

The petitioner, Champa Lal Ojha, was booked in FIR No. 9/1994 registered at Napasar Police Station under Sections 420, 467, and 468 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The complaint alleged that a plot originally belonging to Smt. Sugni Devi was sold to Smt. Saraswati Devi through the issuance of a fake NOC by the local Sarpanch. The complainant alleged that a receipt was issued fraudulently for a sum of ₹4,800.

Notably, another FIR (No. 02/1994) had already been registered regarding the same transaction at the instance of the son of Smt. Saraswati Devi. After investigating the latter FIR (No. 9/1994), the police submitted a negative final report, concluding that no offence was made out against the petitioner. However, upon the complainant’s protest, the trial court took cognizance of the offence and issued a process against the petitioner on February 11, 2013. The order was later affirmed by the revisional court on May 15, 2015.

High Court’s Observations

Justice Farjand Ali, while setting aside both the trial court and the revision court’s orders, held:

"The fact and allegations leveled in FIR No.02/1994 and the FIR No.09/1994 in which offence are exactly the same and are in relation to a transaction which took place on 19.03.1990 whereby a plot was sold to Smt. Saraswati which belonged to Smt. Sugni Devi. This Court feels that the learned Magistrate has not taken care of settled legal proposition that for the same set of accusation, two cases cannot run simultaneously."

The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala & Ors., 2001 (6) SCC 181, which held that "where the truth, the substance, nature of allegation and transaction is the same then lodging a second FIR cannot be permitted."

The Court further noted that the investigating agency had found no case against the petitioner in FIR No. 9/1994, and the negative final report was ignored by the Magistrate while taking cognizance.

"It is well settled principle of law that whenever a Magistrate is supposed to take cognizance of the offence on a negative final report, it is imperative upon him to take note of the grounds mentioned in the negative final report."

The High Court observed that the trial court failed to provide a valid reason for disregarding the negative final report and taking cognizance of the offence. "In the order under assail no such task has been undertaken by the learned Magistrate and I am of the view that the learned Magistrate was supposed to show his disagreement with the police report before taking cognizance of offence and issuance of process."

Criticism of the Revisional Court

Justice Ali also criticized the Sessions Court for failing to exercise its revisional jurisdiction properly. The Court noted that the revisional court was expected to examine the legality and correctness of the Magistrate’s order but failed to do so:

"Examining further, this Court feels that the learned Court of Revision has failed to exercise its revisional jurisdiction. He was expected to examine the legality and correctness of the order passed by learned Magistrate but he did not bother to ponder over the question of law rather lean to concur with the opinion of the Magistrate."

"I am of the view that both the orders are patently illegal and passed after misappreciation of legal and factual aspect of the matter and therefore, the same are not sustainable."

High Court’s Decision

In light of these findings, the High Court allowed the petition and quashed both the orders:

"Accordingly, the instant misc. petition is allowed."

"Both the orders dated 15.05.2015 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner in Criminal Revision Petition No.275/2014 and the order dated 11.02.2013 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate in Criminal Case No.07/02 are hereby quashed and set aside."

"The petitioner is exonerated from the charges."