Case Note & Summary
The applicants filed a criminal application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of R.C.C. No.126 of 2021 arising from C.R. No.0339 of 2020 registered at Vaduj Police Station for offences under Sections 452, 427, 323, 143, 147, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The incident allegedly occurred on 1st October 2020 at about 11:00 a.m., involving assault on Sarvendra Kumar, an employee of respondent No.2. On the same day, Sarvendra Kumar lodged a Non-Cognizable Report (NCR) No.0681 of 2020 under Sections 323, 427, 504, 506 read with 34 IPC. Subsequently, respondent No.2, the employer, lodged a First Information Report on 24th October 2020 for the same incident, adding graver sections. The core legal issue was whether a second FIR on identical facts could be registered after an NCR without the Magistrate's permission under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. The applicants contended that the FIR was barred, while the State and respondent No.2 argued that registration was permissible, citing Mansingh v. State of Maharashtra and State of Rajasthan v. Surendra Singh Rathore. The court distinguished those precedents and relied on Division Bench decisions in Jitendra Namdev Daravkar v. State of Maharashtra and Asif Khan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra, which held that Section 155(2) is mandatory and an NCR inhibits subsequent registration of an FIR on the same incident without Magisterial leave. The court noted that the present case did not involve a counter-complaint, different transactions, or fresh discoveries. Concluding that the impugned FIR was registered in disregard of the statutory safeguard, the court allowed the application and quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Investigation - Registration of Second FIR after NCR - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Sections 155(2), 154 - A second FIR based on the same incident as an earlier Non-Cognizable Report (NCR) cannot be registered without prior order from the Magistrate under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. The Court held that once an NCR is recorded, any subsequent information relating to the same incident, even if disclosing cognizable offences, must comply with the mandatory procedure of Section 155(2). The impugned FIR was lodged twenty-three days after the NCR without seeking Magistrate's permission. Reliance placed on Jitendra Namdev Daravkar v. State of Maharashtra and Asif Khan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra. Held, the registration of the FIR is impermissible and the FIR and consequent proceedings are quashed. (Paras 5-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether an FIR for the same set of allegations is maintainable once an NCR is registered, and whether such FIR can be registered without permission from the Magistrate under Section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Final Decision
Criminal Application No.532 of 2021 allowed. R.C.C. No.126 of 2021 and C.R. No.0339 of 2020 quashed and set aside.
Law Points
- Where a Non-Cognizable Report (NCR) has been registered
- a subsequent First Information Report (FIR) for the same incident cannot be registered without obtaining prior permission from the Magistrate under Section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure
- 1973.
