2025:UHC:7268 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS C482 No.794 of 2017 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Parth Tamta, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Bhuwan Bhatt, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Deepak Bisht, Deputy Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand. 2. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that respondent no.2-Smt. Chandrakanta moved a complaint before Police Station Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar against the applicant and four others for lodging an F.I.R. against them for the offences punishable under Section 354, 323, 147, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(10) of S.C./S.T. Act. After investigation, the Police submitted the Final Report. In the Final Report, it is stated that there is a suit pending between the respondent no.2 and the applicant in the Court of Consolidation Officer and that the respondent no.2 have no medical evidence regarding the injuries and since both the parties belong to Scheduled Caste community, therefore, the offences punishable under Section 3(1)(10) of S.C./S.T. Act are not applicable to the present case. The said Final Report was accepted by the Magistrate on 04.09.2013. Against the Final Report, respondent no.2 filed a Protest Petition on 23.12.2013. The same was rejected vide order dated 17.05.2014. Aggrieved by the said order, respondent no.2 preferred a Revision, which too was dismissed on 06.08.2014. Respondent no.2 did not further challenge the order and, instead surprisingly, respondent no.2 preferred a complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate on the same facts, which were mentioned in the complaint, pursuant to 2025:UHC:7268 which F.I.R. was lodged. After recording the statement of the respondent no.2, the Magistrate took cognizance and issued summons to the applicant vide order dated 30.05.2015. Against the order dated 30.05.2015, applicant preferred Revision. The Revision filed by the applicant was dismissed by the Revisional Court on 08.03.2017. Thus, feeling aggrieved, applicant has filed this criminal misc. application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that, after investigation, the Investigating Officer did not find any substance in the allegations levelled against the applicant and have submitted the Final Report and respondent no.2 have filed a Protest Petition challenging the Final Report, which too was dismissed; that the Revision Petition filed by respondent no.2 has also been dismissed; that, once the proceedings are taken to the logical end, then a party is not permitted to raise the issue by agitating it in a different forum on the self same facts. 4. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “T.T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala & others”, reported in (2001) 6 SCC 181, while dealing with an identical issue, has held as under: “27. A just balance between the fundamental rights of the citizens under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution and the expansive power of the police to investigate a cognizable offence has to be struck by the court. There cannot be any controversy that sub-section (8) of Section 173 CrPC empowers the police to make further investigation, obtain further evidence (both oral and documentary) and forward a further report or reports to the Magistrate. In Narang case [(1979) 2 SCC 322 : 1979 SCC (Cri) 479] it was, however, observed that it would be appropriate to conduct further investigation with the permission of the court. However, the sweeping power of investigation does not warrant subjecting a 2025:UHC:7268 citizen each time to fresh investigation by the police in respect of the same incident, giving rise to one or more cognizable offences, consequent upon filing of successive FIRs whether before or after filing the final report under Section 173(2) CrPC. It would clearly be beyond the purview of Sections 154 and 156 CrPC, nay, a case of abuse of the statutory power of investigation in a given case. In our view a case of fresh investigation based on the second or successive FIRs, not being a counter-case, filed in connection with the same or connected cognizable offence alleged to have been committed in the course of the same transaction and in respect of which pursuant to the first FIR either investigation is under way or final report under Section 173(2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate, may be a fit case for exercise of power under Section 482 CrPC or under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution.” 5. Similarly, in the case of “State of Rajasthan Vs. Surendra Singh Rathore”, reported in 2025 SCC On Line SC 358, Hon’ble Supreme Court proceeded to hold as under: “10. As recorded supra, the High Court found that the two FIRs were indeed in regard to the same offence and, therefore, not maintainable, however, in our view the scope of the two FIRs, as already referred to in para 3 supra, are distinct. The FIR prior in point of time refers to a particular incident and the action taken therein is limited. The second FIR pertains to the larger issue of widespread corruption in the concerned department and, therefore, is much larger in its scope than the previous FIR.” 6. Law is well settled. It does not prohibit filing or entertaining of the second complaint even on the same facts, provided the earlier complaint has been decided on the basis of insufficient material or the order has been passed without understanding the nature of the complaint or the complete facts could not be placed before the Court or where the complainant came to know certain facts after disposal of the first complaint which could have tilted the 2025:UHC:7268 balance in his favour. However, second complaint would not be maintainable wherein the earlier complaint has been disposed of on full consideration of the case of the complainant on merit. In the case in hand, another complaint on the self same facts was registered by the respondent no.2 and since the first complaint registered by respondent no.2 was taken to its logical end, hence, the second complaint for the same incident could not have been registered. 7. In view of the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases, this Court has no hesitation in quashing the entire proceedings of the complaint case registered against the applicant. 8. Accordingly, the criminal misc. application is allowed and the order dated 08.03.2017 passed by learned 5th Additional District Judge, Haridwar in Criminal Revision No.409 of 2015 as well as summoning order dated 30.05.2015 issued by learned Additional Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee is set aside. The entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 3809 of 2014, pending in the Court of learned Additional Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar are hereby quashed. (Alok Mahra, J.) 18.08.2025 Arpan ARPAN JAISWAL Digitally signed by ARPAN JAISWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c0485365445e3 a20dddb7393398f9fe45ba3e, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9D454C510 9CB987446351E4DF04AADAA2C2CEA66, cn=ARPAN JAISWAL Date: 2025.08.19 15:16:16 +05'30'