Case Note & Summary
The applicants, ten individuals accused of various IPC offences, filed a criminal application before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Circuit Bench at Kolhapur, seeking to quash the criminal proceedings in R.C.C. No.126 of 2021 pending before the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate First Class at Vaduj, District Satara. These proceedings arose from C.R. No.0339 of 2020 registered with Vaduj Police Station on 24th October 2020 for offences under sections 452, 427, 323, 143, 147, 148, and 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The dispute originated from an incident on 1st October 2020 at about 11:00 a.m. On that day, one Sarvendra Kumar, an employee of the property owner (respondent No.2), lodged a Non-Cognizable Report (NCR) bearing No.0681 of 2020 at 4:15 p.m. with the same police station, alleging offences under sections 323, 427, 504, 506 read with 34 IPC. After 23 days, respondent No.2 (the property owner) lodged the impugned FIR for the very same incident, invoking additional and more severe sections, thereby converting the matter into a cognizable case. The police registered the FIR without seeking permission from the Magistrate under Section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The core legal issue was whether an FIR is maintainable for the same set of allegations after an NCR has already been registered, and whether the registration of such an FIR without the Magistrate's prior permission under Section 155(2) CrPC is permissible. The applicants argued that the mandatory procedural safeguard of Section 155(2) was violated, rendering the FIR unsustainable. Conversely, the respondents relied on certain judgments, including Mansingh Shitole v. State of Maharashtra, T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, and State of Rajasthan v. Surendra Singh Rathore, contending that there is no absolute bar on registering a second FIR. The High Court analysed the factual matrix and found that both the NCR and the FIR pertained to the identical incident occurring at the same time and place. The second FIR did not present a counter-complaint, a different transaction, or any larger conspiracy; it merely replicated the earlier incident with enhanced charges. Relying on the Division Bench decisions of the Bombay High Court in Jitendra Namdev Daravkar v. State of Maharashtra and Asif Khan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra, the Court held that once an NCR is registered for a non-cognizable offence, a subsequent FIR for the same occurrence cannot be registered without complying with the mandatory requirement of Section 155(2) CrPC, i.e., obtaining prior permission from the Magistrate. The Court distinguished the principles laid down in State of Rajasthan, observing that those concerned counter-complaints or separate transactions, not a mere reiteration of the same facts by a different informant. Consequently, the Court allowed the application and quashed both the FIR (C.R. No.0339 of 2020) and the resultant criminal case (R.C.C. No.126 of 2021), ruling in favour of the applicants (accused).
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Registration of FIR after NCR - Requirement of Magistrate's permission under Section 155(2) CrPC - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 155(2) - Once a non-cognizable report (NCR) has been registered by the police for an incident, a subsequent first information report (FIR) for the same incident cannot be registered without obtaining prior permission from the Magistrate as mandated by Section 155(2) CrPC. The registration of an FIR in such circumstances is impermissible and vitiates the proceedings. Held, that the FIR was registered without following the mandatory procedure and must be quashed. (Paras 5, 10) B) Criminal Procedure - Second FIR - Same incident - When the second FIR is not a counter-complaint or does not relate to a different transaction or larger conspiracy but merely narrates the same incident by a different informant, it is barred. The Court distinguished the principle of permissibility of second FIR as laid down in State of Rajasthan v. Surendra Singh Rathore, 2025 INSC 248 and held that such a second FIR cannot be sustained. (Paras 9-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether an FIR for the same set of allegations is maintainable once an NCR is registered and whether without permission from the Magistrate under Section 155(2) of the CrPC, such FIR could have been registered.
Final Decision
The Court allowed the criminal application and quashed and set aside R.C.C. No.126 of 2021 pending before the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate First Class at Vaduj, District Satara, and the underlying FIR bearing C.R. No.0339 of 2020 registered with Vaduj Police Station. The Court held that the registration of the FIR without following Section 155(2) CrPC was impermissible.
Law Points
- Non-cognizable report
- Section 155(2) CrPC
- mandatory permission from Magistrate before investigating non-cognizable offence
- second FIR for same incident impermissible
- reliance on Asif Khan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra
- 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 2217
