[2026:RJ-JP:30619] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6736/2017 CNR: RJHC021132732017 | URN: CRLMP / 11288U / 2017 1. Jagbir S/o Ganga Ram, R/o Village Baroliran, Tehsil And Police Station Nadbai, District Bharatpur. 2. Vivek Kumar S/o Ganga Ram, R/o Village Baroliran, Tehsil And Police Station Nadbai, District Bharatpur. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan Through PP. 2. Om Prakash S/o Hukmi Ram, R/o Village Baroliran, Police Station Nadbai, District Bharatpur. ----Respondents Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5579/2017 CNR: RJHC020499362017 | URN: CRLMP / 9218U / 2017 Ganga Ram S/o Natthi, R/o Village Baroliran, Tehsil And Police Station, Nadbai, Distt. Bharatpur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan Through P.P. 2. Om Prakash S/o Hukmi Ram, R/o Village Baroliran, Police Station, Nadbai, Distt. Bharatpur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mamraj Gurjar for Ms. Shalini Sheoran For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP None for complainant HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 05/08/2026 1. These two criminal miscellaneous petitions under Section 482 of CrPC are filed by the petitioners (accused) for quashing of [2026:RJ-JP:30619] (2 of 11) [CRLMP-6736/2017] FIR No.286/2017 dated 17th May 2017 for the offense under Sections 323, 341, 342 IPC and Section 3 of SC/ST (POA) Act, registered at Police Station Nadbai, District Bharatpur. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that earlier FIR No.60/2015 was registered by same complainant on 6th February 2015 at Police Station Nadbai, District Bharatpur for the offense under Sections 323, 341, 504, 336, 354 IPC and Section 3 of SC/ST (POA) Act, and after registration of said FIR, the matter is investigated by police and police has submitted a closure report as FR No. 31/2015 on the ground that the facts mentioned in the report are totally false. He also submits that the complainant has appeared before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and on 22nd October 2016, said FR was accepted by the learned trial Court. He also submits that on same facts, another report is registered by complainant Om Prakash on 17th May 2017 with same facts and allegations. He also submits that subsequent FIR No.286/2017 is an abuse of process of law as a second FIR on same facts is not permissible. He also submits that when the non- applicant/complainant has already lodged a report and same was closed and FR has been accepted, then the filing of subsequent FIR is liable to be quashed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners also referred FIR No. 280/2014 dated 5th May 2014 registered by one of the petitioners Ganga Ram and submitted that the present petitioner was working as Prerak and the complainant has animosity with petitioner. He also referred order dated 28th May 2014 in writ petition No. 6108/2014 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Court [2026:RJ-JP:30619] (3 of 11) [CRLMP-6736/2017] and submitted that the Sarpanch and her husband Mohan Singh were causing obstructions in discharge of duty of the petitioner and this Hon'ble Court has directed the Collector to ensure that no untoward incident takes place with the petitioner. He also submits that now under the influence, the investigation of second FIR has been undertaken by police, and at behest of husband of Sarpanch, police want to prosecute the petitioners. He submits that continuance of false and concocted criminal case is an abuse of process of law. 4. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor, and he placed reliance upon a report dated 31st July 2026 and submitted that the police has drawn a conclusion that offense under Section 323, 341, 504, 34, IPC and Section 3(1)(S) of SC/ST (POA) Act is found proved against Ganga Ram and Jagveer Singh. 5. None present on behalf of the non-applicant/complainant despite service of notice upon the complainant. 6. The file indicate that Mr. Puran Singh Meena and Rajendra Saini, Advocates, have filed power on behalf of the complainant, but they are not present to argue the matter. 7. Admittedly, FIR No. 60/2015 dated 6th February 2015, was registered at Police Station Nadbai for incident of 5th February 2015 wherein it has been mentioned that :- " lsok esa] Jheku dksroky lkgc iqfyl Fkkuk unobZ ¼Hkjriqj½ fuosnu gS fd dy fn- 5@2@2015 ds lqcg 8&9 cts lhd dh ckr gS fd vizkFkhZx.k xaxkjke iq= uRFkh] Mods'k] txohj fi- xaxkjke tkfr dqEgkj fuoklh cjkSyhjku Fkkuk unobZ ds esjh eka cfgu csfV;ksa ij [2026:RJ-JP:30619] (4 of 11) [CRLMP-6736/2017] VkSfVaxokth djrs gq, QRrh;k dl jgs Fks eSus ,slk djus ls euk fd;k rks eka cfgu dh xkfy;ak nsrs gq, lHkh O;fDr;ksa us vius e'kojs ds eqrkfcd Fkki FkIiM ykr ?kwalksa ls ekjihV dj esjs eqag ij Fkwd fn;k rFkk esjs v.Mdks"kksa esa [kRe djus ds mn~ns'; ls xaxkjke us tsrw dh Bksdj ekjh rFkk dgk fd eknjpksn dUtjk [kVhdjk rw ljiap dh Vgy pkdjh esa yxk jgrk gS rsjk xkao esa jguk Hkqyk nqaxk D;ksafd esjh reke iqfyl vf/kdkfj;ksa ls mBd cSBd gS rFkk esjk yMdk jkT; lsok esa lsokjr gS tks mij igqap j[krk gS esjh ph[k fpYYkkgV ij esjh iRuh us chp cpko djus dh dksf'k'k dh rks vizkFkhZ Mods'k vkSj txohj us pqfV;k idMdj csvnc dj Fkki FkIiM ykr ?kwalksa ls ekjh ihVh rFkk gekjs mij bZaV iRFkj QSdsa ;g cnek'kku izo`fr ds O;fDr gS tks >wBh fjiksVZ djus ds vkfn gSA rFkk eq>s lifjokj ukuk izdkj dh ;kruk,a nsrs gq, ekufld@'kkjhfjd ihMk igqapkrs jgrs gSa rFkk vfiz; ?kVuk ?kfVr djus ij vkeknk gS ftuds vkrad ls eSa lifjokj xkao NksMus ds dxkj ij gwa ,slh lwjr esa vijkf/k;ksa ds f[kykQ dk;Zokgh dj esjs ifjokj dh j{kk djkus gsrq fjiksVZ is'k gSA ;g eq>s jkthukek djus dk Hkh ncko Mky dj ekufld izrkMuk ns jgs gSaA izkFkhZ vkseizdk'k S/O gqdehjke tkfr [kVhd fuoklh cjkSyhjku Fkkuk unobZ] fn- 6@2@2015] M-9649384801, SD vkseizdk'k” 8. After investigation of FIR No.60/2015, FR No. 31/2015 was drawn and same is filed before learned ACJM, Nadbai, on the ground that the facts narrated by complainant are false and the incident has not occurred. Said FR (closure report) was accepted by the trial Court on 22.10.2016, thus, the proceeding arising out of FIR No.60/2015 registered at Police Station Nadbai has closed. The petitioner Ganga Ram has filed a complaint under Section 182 and 211 of CrPC in relation to FIR No. 60/2015 and the record indicate that lastly it was taken up by the trial Court on 5th August [2026:RJ-JP:30619] (5 of 11) [CRLMP-6736/2017] 2017 wherein petitioner Ganga Ram has prayed to take cognizance against Om Prakash and Mohan Singh. 9. Current FIR No. 286/2017 was registered on 17th May 2017 at Police Station Nadbai for incident in the night of 16th May 2017 and the contents of FIR are reproduced as under:- "lsok esa] Jheku dksroky lkgc iqfyl Fkkuk uncbZ fo"k; fjiksVZ ntZ dj dkuwuh dk;Zokgh fd;s tkus ckcrA Jhekuth fuosnu gS fd fnukad 16-5-2017 jk=h djhc 11 cts lhd dh ckr gS fd eSa izkFkhZ o esjh ifRu ,d 'kknh lekjksg ls Hkkstu djds vius ?kj ykSV jgs Fks rks vizkFkhZx.k xaxkjke iq= Jh uRFkh] txohj flag] foosd filjku xaxkjke] Hkh[kk iq= dtkSMh] pwjkeu iq= Hkh[kk lefLr tkfr;ku dqEgkj fuoklh xzke cjkSyhjku rglhy o Fkkuk uncbZ ftyk Hkjriqj jktu us ,djke e'kfojk dj ykBh MUMks ls ySl gksdj eq> izkFkhZ o esjh ifRu mxUrh ds lkFk cqjh rjg ls ekjihB dh o vizkFkhZx.k xaxkjke] txohj esjh ifRu dks tcjnLrh idM dj vius ?kj ds vUnj [khap ys x;s o mldks nksuksa vizkFkhZ x.kksa us feydj tehu ij iVd dj cqjh rjg ls pksVh idM dj ekjihV dh o csvnc dj fn;kA o vizkFkhZx.k us eq> izkFkhZ o eq> izkFkhZ dh ifRu dks xanh xanh xkfy;ka nh o dgk fd lkys [kVhdjkvksa rqEgs ge tku ls ekj dj jgsaxs o lHkh vizkFkhZx.kksa ds f[kykQ l[r dkuwuh dk;Zokgh fd;s tkus dh d`ik djsaA izkFkhZ vkseizdk'k iq= Jh gqdehjke tkfr [kVhd fuoklh xzke cjkSyhjku Fkkuk uncbZ ftyk Hkjriqj jkt0 fnukad 17-5-2017 eksckbZy uEcj 9649384801 ,lMh vkseizdk'k" 10. The police has investigated the matter and as per report, the police has found involvement of Ganga Ram and Jagveer Singh for committing offense under Sections 323, 341, 504, 34, IPC and Section 3(1)(S) of SC/ST (POA) Act. The involvement of Vivek Kumar has not been found from the report and police has closed the proceedings against Vivek Kumar after deleting his name. The [2026:RJ-JP:30619] (6 of 11) [CRLMP-6736/2017] report also indicate that Ganga Ram and Jagveer Singh were arrested on 17th July 2017 but thereafter a stay order is passed on 2nd November 2017, by this Court. 11. The material on record indicate that FIR No.280/2014 was registered by Ganga Ram against Mohan Singh, Rajwati wife of Mohan Singh and Maan Singh Soni on 5th May 2014 for incident of 12th March 2014 by filing a criminal complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate. The material also indicate that another FIR No.562/2014 was registered on 8th September 2014 by the petitioner Ganga Ram against Mohan Singh for incident of 4th August 2014 and FIR under Sections 332 and 353 IPC was registered under the order of Judicial Magistrate under Section 156(3) of CrPC. 12. The present petitioner has filed a writ petition No. 6108/2014 before this Court against six respondents including Sarpanch and Secretary of village Panchayat and husband of Sarpanch. A Coordinate Bench has considered the writ petition and disposed of the writ petition with the following order:- "Petitioner has been working as Prerak in Gram Panchayt Baroliran, Panchayat Samiti Nadbai, District Bharatpur, for last 22 years on contract basis. It is contended that respondent no.6, who is husband of respondent no.4, caused maarpeet with petitioner on 18.03.2014, and in this regard, petitioner submitted a complaint before the police station, Nadbai, but the police did not lodge first information report. The petitioner also approached the respondent no.2 on 18.03.2014, but nothing has been done in the mater. When respondent no.6 came to know about the efforts of the petitioner to lodge the first information report, he pressurized the respondent's no.4 an5 to remove the services of the petitioner. Thereafter, the respondent's no.4 [2026:RJ-JP:30619] (7 of 11) [CRLMP-6736/2017] and 5 issued two show cause notices to the petitioner to explain his willful absence on 08.03.2014. It is contended on account of their ill intention. It is contended that when nothing was done the complaint of the petitioners, he submitted a private complaint before the concerned Magistrate, and it was only thereafter that F.I.R. No.280/2014 was registered on 05.05.2014, but due to collusion of respondent no.6 with the police, the police has registered the FIR only for offence under Sections 323, 341/34, IPC. Hence, this writ petition. Having regard to the facts of the case, writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent no.2 -the District Collector, Bharatpur, to ensure that the petitioner is permitted to discharge his duties without any fear and if need be provide him police protection and if any untoward incident takes place with the petitioner, the concerned Station House officer of the Police Station should be held liable. This also disposes of stay application." 13. In case of T.T. Antony versus State of Kerala : (2001) 6 SCC 181, Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the fundamental rights under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and the authority of police to investigate a cognizable offense, has opined that:- “20. … there can be no second FIR and no fresh investigation on receipt of every subsequent information in respect of the same cognizable offences or same occurrence giving rise to one or more cognizable offence, only the earliest or the first information in regard to the commission of a cognizable offence satisfies the requirements of Section 154 CrPC. 10 11 Another Division Bench of the Supreme Court also took a similar view that the filing of second FIR on the basis of the given facts and circumstances of the first FIR is unwarranted and violative of fundamental rights under Articles 14, 20 and 21 of the Constitution, instead filing of a supplementary charge-sheet in this regard would suffice the issue.” [2026:RJ-JP:30619] (8 of 11) [CRLMP-6736/2017] 14. Again, in case of Arnab Ranjan Goswami Vs. Union of India: (2020) 14 SCC 12, relying upon relying on case of T.T. Antony (supra), has observed as under:- “if the Court were to conclude in the affirmative when two or more FIRs that relates to the same incident or to the incidents which form part of the same transactions, the subsequent FIRs are liable to be quashed. However, where the subsequent FIRs relate to different incidents or crimes or is in the form of a counterclaim, investigation may proceed.” 15. In case of Amish Devgan versus Union of India : (2021) 3 SCC 306 dealing an issue of multiplicity of FIRs reiterated the principles laid down in case of T.T. Anthony (supra) and Arnab Ranjan Goswami (supra) and observed as under:- "the principle underlying Section 186 CrPC can be applied at the precharge-sheet stage, that is, post registration of FIR but before charge-sheet is submitted to the Magistrate. In such cases ordinarily the first FIR, that is, the FIR registered first in point of time, should be treated as the main FIR and others as statements under Section 162 CrPC . However, in exceptional cases and for good reasons, it will be open to the High Court or this Court, as the case may be, to treat the subsequently registered FIR as the principal FIR. However, this should not cause any prejudice, inconvenience or harassment to either the victims, witnesses or the person who is accused." 16. Aforesaid principle clearly laid down that a second FIR for same incident cannot be registered as Section 154 itself provides safeguard similar to principle of double jeopardy. The Court has to determine that if offense forming part of second FIR arises as a consequence of the offense alleged in first FIR and the offense covered by both FIRs and the offense in both the FIRs are the same, then second FIR is impermissible in the law. [2026:RJ-JP:30619] (9 of 11) [CRLMP-6736/2017] 17. In case of State of Rajasthan versus Surendra Singh Rathore : 2025 INSC 248, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that a second FIR for the same offense is impermissible but a second FIR for the different offense is permissible and the nature of the allegation in both the FIRs must be examined to determine the permissibility of registering a subsequent FIR. 18. In light of aforementioned facts, when we examine the facts of both FIRs, then a fact is quite clear that FIR No. 60/2015 is filed for an offense committed on 05-02-2015, whereas FIR No. 286/2017 is filed for the offense committed in the night of 16-05- 2017. Both the complainants are same but allegations are different, and act of assault is on different date and time. In both the FIRs the allegations are almost similar in nature but the year and the time of incident is different. In current FIR, even the use of abusive words against the wife of the complainant is also mentioned. In first FIR No.60/2015, the police has investigated the matter and found that the allegations are false but in current FIR the offense is found proved against two accused, but not against Vivek Kumar. 19. Considering the principle as mentioned herein, the second FIR is not related to same set of offense rather the offenses are different and so the facts. Therefore, on the ground of institution of second FIR, the current FIR cannot be quashed as itself a different incident than the earlier one, thus, the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners are not tenable. 20. The material on record clearly indicate that there is an animosity between petitioner Ganga Ram and the husband of [2026:RJ-JP:30619] (10 of 11) [CRLMP-6736/2017] Sarpanch of Village Panchayat and the complainant is at the instance of husband of Sarpanch has filed the FIR No.60/2015, which itself is mentioned in the contents of FIR. The petitioner Ganga Ram has to approach this Court by filing a writ petition and the writ petition was disposed on 28th May 2014 with direction to the Collector to ensure that the petitioner Ganga Ram is permitted to discharge his duties without any fear and in case of need, be provided police protection. The order further indicate that if any untoward incident takes place with petitioner Ganga Ram, the concerned SHO of police station should be held liable. 21. In the instant case, two FIRs were lodged by petitioner Ganga Ram and a complaint is also filed by him, and these are sufficient to show that the petitioner Ganga Ram has sought police help in discharging his duties. The registration of FIR Nos. 280/2014 and 562/2014 at police station Nadbai clearly indicate that these reports were registered only after intervention of learned Judicial Magistrate, which means the police has not fulfilled its responsibility as directed by this Court while order dated 28th May 2014. 22. Having considered the entirety and facts and circumstances, in particularly, the material on record, we are convinced with the fact that the current FIR is a result of animosity between the present petitioner and husband of village Sarpanch. The content of FIR No.60/2015 clearly indicate that the fact that the complainant Om Prakash is closely related to Mohan Singh. The protection given to the petitioner Ganga Ram has in fact not worked in ensuring his safety. In the instant case, the police even arrested [2026:RJ-JP:30619] (11 of 11) [CRLMP-6736/2017] Ganga Ram and his son and ultimately a Coordinate Bench on 2nd November 2017 has stayed the investigation. 23. The facts of the case are almost akin to the judgment in case of Ankul Singh versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another reported in 2025 INSC 1153, wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court after considering the categories illustrated in case of State of Haryana versus Bajanlal : 1992 supplementary (1) SCC 335 and Inder Mohan Goswami and another versus State of Uttaranchal and Ors. : AIR 2008 SC 251 has emphasized that criminal prosecution must not be permitted as an instrument of harassment or private vandata. 24. Considering the principles of law as referred hereinabove, the facts of the case warrants invocation of jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC to prevent abuse of process of law, therefore, these miscellaneous petitions are liable to be allowed and all proceedings arising out of said FIRs are liable to be quashed. 25. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, both the criminal miscellaneous petitions filed under section 482 CRPC are hereby allowed and FIR No. 286/2017 registered at police station Nadbai, District Bharatpur and subsequent proceedings are hereby quashed and set aside. 26. Miscellaneous application(s) and stay application(s), if any, also stand disposed. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J 69/MR