Suman Shyam DECISION
Suman Shyam, J.
1. Heard Mr. N.J. Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. I have also heard Mr. R.J. Baruah, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam, appearing for the respondent No. 1. None has appeared for the respondent No. 2. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 was absent even on the previous occasion.
2. By filing this Criminal Petition under Section 482 read with Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C. the petitioners have prayed for quashing the First Information Report (F.I.R.) dated 21.12.2016 based on which, All Women Police Station Case No. 214/2016 was registered under sections 498(A)/354((b)/326/305/34 IPC, on the ground that a second F.I.R. on the same occurrence is not permissible in the eye of law.
3. It appears from the record that the respondent No. 2 had lodged an F.I.R. on 15.12.2016 before the Officer-in-Charge of Kamalpur Police Station based on which, Kamalpur P.S. Case No. 176/2016 was registered under section 498(A) of the IPC. On completion of investigation, the police had submitted charge-sheet against the four accused persons named in the said F.I.R. and another viz., Ms. Kamini Deka. The learned trial court has framed charge against the accused persons in G.R. Case No. 1610/2016 corresponding to Kamalpur P.S. Case No. 176/2016 and the trial is under progress. However, within seven days of the F.I.R. dated 15.12.2016, the respondent No. 2, had lodged another F.I.R. on 21.12.2016 based on which, All Women P.S. Case No. 214/2016 has been registered.
4. By referring to both the F.I.Rs. Mr. Das submits that the informant has lodged the subsequent F.I.R. reporting the same incident only to cause undue harassment and injury to the interest of the accused persons, who are already facing trial in connection with G.R. Case No. 1610/2016. Contending that fresh investigation by the Police based on a second F.I.R. reporting the same cognizable offence was impermissible in the eye of law, Mr. Das has prayed for quashing of the subsequent F.I.R. dated 21.12.2016. In support of his aforesaid argument, Mr. Das has placed reliance on the following decisions:-
1. MANU/SC/0365/2001 : (2001) 6 SCC 181 [T.T. Antony vs. State of Kerala & others]
2. MANU/SC/0643/2010 : (2010) 12 SCC 254 [Babubhai vs. State of Gujarat & others]
3. MANU/GH/0057/2013 : 2013 (2) GLT 822 [Sudhir Dasgupta and others vs. State of Assam and others].
5. Mr. Baruah, learned Addl. P.P., Assam, has fairly submitted that the second F.I.R. dated 21.12.2016 relates to the same incident and therefore, was not maintainable in the eye of law. The learned Addl. P.P. further submits that in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another reported in MANU/SC/0329/2013 : (2013) 6 SCC 348, the second F.I.R. cannot be the basis of fresh investigation........