KARI CHOUDHARY versus MOST. SITA DEVI AND ORS.

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 588 · Decided: 11-12-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
KARI CHOUDHARY 
v. 
MOST. SIT A DEVI AND ORS. 
DECEMBER II, 2001 
[K.T. THOMAS AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 : Sections 154, 173(2) and (8). 
·Penal Code, 1860: Sections 18, 211, 302/34. 
First Information Report-Lodging of two different FJRs-Permissibility 
of-FIR lodged by mother-in-law-Report that daughter-in-law killed by some 
persons-lnvestigation-Police finding that version furnished by mother-in-
/aw was false-Report sent by police to Magistrate--Registration of another 
FIR. against mother-in-law-Validity of-Held, lnvestigating Agency is not 
precluded from further investigation in respect of an offence in spite of sending 
a report under Section 173(2) Ct.P.C. 
Respondent No.l lodged an FIR stating that that a few persons from 
ontside had sneaked into the bedroom of her daughter-in-law and mur-
dered her by strangulation on 27.6.1998. During investigation police found 
that the version furnished by respondent was false and that the murder 
was committed pursnant to conspiracy hatched by respondent No. 1 and 
her other daughter-in-law. Consequently police sent a report on 30.11.1998 
to the Magistrate and registered another FIR. 111e respondent's protest 
complaint that the police report dated 30.11.1998 was wholly unsustainable 
and that persons arrayed in the first FIR were real culprits was rejected by 
Chief Judicial Magistrate. Revision preferred by first respondent was 
allowed by High Court which directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate to 
conduct an enquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 
1973. Thereafter on the basis of investigation conducted, the respondent, 
her two other daughters-in-law, son and a few others were charged under 
Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. The respondent moved the High 
Court and a Single Judge of the High Court quashed the criminal proceed-
ings on the premise that there was double jeopardy against first-respond-
ent. The brother of the deceased filed appeal before this Court challenging 
the order of the High Court. On behalf of the respondent it was contended 
that once the proceedings initiated under the first FIR ended in a final 
588 
KARI CHOUDHARY v. MOST: SITA DEVI [THOMAS, l.] 
report the police had no authority to register a second FIR. 
589 
Allowing the appeal and setting aside the impugned order, the Court 
A 
HELD : 1.1. There cannot be two FIRs against the same accused in 
respect of the same case. But when there are rival versions in respect of the 
same episode, they would normally take the shape of two different FIRs 
B 
and investigation can be carried on under both of them by the same 
investigating agency. Even that apart, the report submitted by the court 
styling it as subsequent FIR need be considered as an information submit· 
ted to the court regarding the new discovery made by the police during 
investigation that persons not named in earlier FIR are the real culprits. 
C 
To quash this said proceeding merely on the ground that final report had . 
been laid in earlier FIR is, to say the least, too technical. The ultimate 
object of every investigation is to find out whether the offences alleged 
have been committed and, it so, who have committed it. [592-C-E] 
1.2. Even otherwise the investigating agency is not precluded from 
D 
further investigation in respect of an offence inspite of forwarding a report 
under sub-section (2) of Section 173 on a pervious occasion. This is clear 
from Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. [592-F] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1280 
of 2001. 
E 
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.3.2001 of the Patna High Court 
in Crl. M. No. 28795 of 1998. 
A. Sharan, S. Chandrashekhar, Sri Prakash and Irshad Ahmad, for the 
Appellant. 
F 
Ambhoj Kr. Sinha for the Respondents Nos. I, 3-5. 
B.B. Singh for the Respondent Nos. 8-9. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
G 
THOMAS, J. Leave granted. 
A mother-in-law figured as the complainant in a .c_ase of culpable homi-
cide of her daughter-in-law, but eventually she. was transposed as one of the 
delinquent offenders of the said murder. The High Court has now stalled the 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
590 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2001] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
case against her on the ground of her first complaint. This was unreconcilable 
to the brother of the deceased and hence he has come to this Court challenging 
the said order of the High Court. 
Sugnia Devi is

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.