Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:11881 Court No. - 16 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1686 of 2025 Applicant :- Aman And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Suresh Kumar Mishra,Pankaj Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned AGA for the State. Notice to respondent no. 2 is dispensed with in view of the proposed order. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that initially, FIR No. 36 of 2024 was registered under Sections 279 and 304 of the IPC, along with Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. While the investigation in this FIR was ongoing, a separate complaint case was filed by another complainant upon which cognizance has been taken. It has been further argued that the proceedings of the impugned complaint case are nothing but an abuse of process of law. Learned AGA on the other hand has submitted that regarding the same incident, both an FIR and a separate complaint case by different complainants are legally permissible. Perused the record. It appears from perusal of the record that the FIR was lodged by Baccharam Yadav, the brother of the deceased. Dissatisfied with the investigation, the deceased's mother subsequently filed a complaint case, in which three witnesses PW-1, PW-2, and PW- 3 were examined by the learned magistrate before taking cognizance and issuing process. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash & Others [(2004) 13 SCC 292], has held that a second complaint in regard to the same incident is not prohibited. So far as judgment of the Apex Court in "Tarak Dash Mukharjee and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, 2022 Livelaw (SC) 731", relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, the Supreme Court held that multiple FIRs filed by the same person against the same accused are not permissible. In the present case, the FIR was filed by Baccharam Yadav, whereas the impugned complaint has been filed by Smt. Nanka (the mother of the deceased). Since the second complaint has been filed by a different complainant, it is legally permissible. Accordingly, the judgment of Tarak Dash Mukherjee (supra) relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable in the present case. From perusal of the record as well as the impugned order, it is evident that prima facie commission of cognizable offence is made out. There appears to be no illegality in the order impugned. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be taken into consideration at this stage while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In view of the observations made hereinabove, the petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 27.2.2025 R.C. Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench