SHIV SHANKAR SINGH versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR.

Citation: [2011] 13 S.C.R. 247 · Decided: 22-11-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.S. CHAUHAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

(2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 247 
SHIV SHANKAR SINGH 
v. 
STATE OF BIHAR & ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 2160 of 2011) 
NOVEMBER 22, 2011 
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND T.S. THAKUR, JJ.] 
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973: 
A 
B 
Chapter XV - Second protest petition - Maintainability c 
of - Magistrate taking cognizance and issuing summons -
Held: The protest petition can always be treated as a 
complaint and proceeded with in terms of Chapter XV of 
Cr.P.C. - Therefore, in case there is no bar to entertain .a 
second complaint, in exceptional circumstances, the second 
0 
protest petition can also similarly be entertained -
In the 
instant case, the High Court without taking note of the 
evidence referred to by the Magistrate, set aside his order on 
a technical ground that the second protest petition was not 
·maintainable, without considering the fact that the first protest E 
petition having been filed prior to filing of the Final Report was 
not competent - More so, the High Court without any 
justification made sweeping remarks against the Magistrate 
, which remain unjustified and unwarranted in thefacts and 
circumstances of the case - The order of the High Court is 
set aside and that of the Magistrate restored - Strictures. 
F 
F.l.R. 
Two FIRs in respect of the same incident - Held: Filing 
of another FIR in respect of the same incident having a G 
different version of events is permissible. 
Two FIRs were registered in respect of an incident 
in which one 'GS', the nephew of the appellant, died in 
247 
H 
248 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R 
A the night of 6.12.2004 - one was lodged by the appellant 
on the same night stating that a dacoity was committed 
in his house and in the house of his brother, namely, 'KS', 
by respondent no. 2 and others wherein lots of valuable 
properties were looted and 'GS' was killed by the dacoits; 
B and the another FIR was registered on 29.12.2004 
consequent upon a case filed by 'KS', the father of the 
deceased, u/s 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 
1973, stating that the appellant and his associates had 
killed 'GS', as the accused wanted to grab the immovable 
C property. The appellant filed a Protest Petition on 4.4.2005; 
but no orders were passed thereon. The investigation in 
the FIR dated 6.12.2004 resulted in a Final Report u/s 173 
Cr.P.C filed by the police on 9.4.2005 to the effect that the 
case was totally false and 'GS' had been killed for 
property disputes. In regard to the other FIR, the police, I 
D after completing the investigation, filed a charge-sheet for 
offences punishable u/ss 302, 302/34e 506 IPC etc. on 
29.8.2005 against the appellant and others. However, the 
trial stood concluded in favour of the accused persons 
therein. On 22.9.2005, the appellant filed a second Protest 
E Petition in respecf of the Final Report dated 9.4.2005. The 
Magistrate, by order dated 2.8.2008, took cognizance and 
issued summons to respondent no. 2 and others. The 
criminal petition filed by respondent no. 2 for quashing 
the order dated 2.8.2008 was allowed by the High Court . 
F on the ground that the second Protest Petition was not 
maintainable and the appellant ought to have pursued 
the first Protest Petition dated 4.4.2005. 
G 
H 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Law does not prohibit registration and 
Investigation of two FIRs in respect of the same incident 
in case the versions are different The test of sameness 
has to be applied, otherwise there would not be cross 
cases and counter cases. Thus, filing another FIR In 
SHIV SHANKAR SINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR & ANR. 249 
respect of the same Incident having a different version 
A 
of events is permissible. [para 6) [255-A-C] 
Ram Lal Narang v. State (Delhi Admn.), AIR 1979 SC 
1791; Sudhir & Ors., v. State of M.P., 2001 ( 1 ) SCR 813 = 
AIR 2001 SC 826; T. T. Antony v. State of Kera/a & Ors., 2001 
8 
(3) SCR 942 = AIR 2001 SC 2637; Upkar Singh v. Ved 
Prakash & Ors., AIR 2004 SC 4320; and Babubhai v. State 
of Gujarat & Ors., 2010 (10) SCR 651 = (2010) 12 SCC 254 
- relied on 
Joy Krishna Chakraborty & Ors. v. The State & Anr., 1980 C 
Crl. L.J. 482 - distinguished. 
2.1 An informant is the person interested in the result 
of the investigation. In case the Magistrate takes a view 
that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding further o 
and drops the proceedings, the informant would certainly 
be prejudiced and, therefore, he has a right to be heard. 
[para 9) [256-B-CJ 
Bhagwant Singh
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.