Ravindra Singh and Naheed Ara Moonis, JJ.@mdashThis petition has been filed by the Petitioners Manasvi Kumar and Manoj Kumar with a prayer to issue writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the first information report dated 17.2.2009 of Case Crime No. 98 of 2009 u/s 302, I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Orai, District Jalaun and to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondent No. 2 and his subordinate officers not to arrest the Petitioners in pursuance of the report registered as Case Crime No. 98 of 2009 u/s 302, I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Orai, District Jalaun or any order or direction, as this Hon''ble Court may deem fit and proper on the facts and circumstances of the case may be issued.
2. The facts, in brief, of this case are that the F.I.R. has been lodged by Respondent No. 3 Dr. Bhagwan Das Verma on 17.2.2009 at 2.00 p.m. at police station Kotwali Orai in Case Crime No. 98 of 2009 u/s 302, I.P.C. in respect of the incident which had occurred from 13.12.2008 to 14.12.2008 at 7.00 p.m. alleging therein that the marriage of the deceased Dr. Pooja Verma was solemnised with Petitioner No. 1. The Respondent No. 3, the father of the deceased, spent money of about 15 lacs in the said marriage even then the deceased was subjected to cruelty for the purpose of realising some more money from the deceased because she was earning about Rs. 49,000 per month as salary. Respondent No. 3 was informed by the deceased in the first week of December, 2008 that she was having apprehension of her death from her husband and father-in-law. The deceased was staying at Orai in the month of December, 2008 at her uncle Roop Ram Verma''s house but for the purpose of committing her murder in furtherance of a pre-planned conspiracy, she was persuaded by the Petitioners on 13.12.2008 to go in their company then she was brought by them from Orai to Agra on 13.12.2008 and they left Agra in a Car for going to Delhi on 14.2.2008 but on the way to Delhi at about 7.00 p.m., in a pre-planned scheme for the purpose of committing the murder of the deceased, the car driven by Petitioner No. 1 collided with a tractor having trolley, the Petitioner No. 1 opened the door of his car and pushed out the deceased on the road consequently, she sustained serious injuries and succumbed to her injuries on 16.12.2008. The deceased was the only daughter of the Respondent No. 3 that is why he remained in shocking condition so that the F.I.R. could not be promptly lodged. The conspiracy of the murder of the deceased was given effect from Orai to the place of occurrence where collision of the vehicle had taken place. The F.I.R. was not directly written by the police authorities, thereafter he moved the application u/s 156(3), Cr. P.C., the same was allowed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun at Orai on 28.1.2009 in pursuance of the order dated 28.1.2009, passed by learned C.J.M., Jalaun at Orai, the F.I.R. of this case was registered at police station Kotwali Orai on 17.2.2009. Being aggrieved from the above mentioned F.I.R., the Petitioners have filed the present writ petition with a prayer to quash the same.
3. Heard Sri Manish Tiwari and Sri Ashwini Kumar Awasthi, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and perused the record.
4. It is contended by learned Counsel for the Petitioners that:
(i) The allegations as set out in F.I.R. are absolutely false, neither the police of Police Station Kotwali, District Jalaun was having any jurisdiction to register and investigate the impugned F.I.R. nor the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun at Orai was having the jurisdiction for directing the S.H.O. of Police Station Kotwali, Orai to register the case and investigate the same in exercise of powers conferred u/s 156(3), Cr. P.C. vide order dated 28.1.2009 because he was not having the territorial jurisdiction.
(ii) Petitioner No. 1 is having own business in New Delhi, his mother is Head Mistress of Delhi Public School R. K. Puram, New Delhi. The Petitioner No. 1 performed the marriage with the deceased Dr. Pooja Verma in a simple ceremony with the blessings of all the elders including the family members of both the families. Prior to the marriage, the deceased Dr. Pooja Verma had written many letters to Petitioner No. 1, they were leading a happy married life, there was no dispute between them.
(iii) On 13.12.2008, on the invitation of Shri Ram Ratan Verma, cousin of the deceased, the Petitioner No. 1 alongwith father of Petitioner No. 1 and his mother and sister reached Agra and saw the Taj Mahal in full moon light, thereafter they checked in Hotel Jaypee, Agra, on 14.12.2008 they visited other places of importance including Fatehpur Sikri, thereafter they proceeded towards Delhi at around 4.30 p.m. but on way to Delhi, the car of the Petitioners was collided with a tractor-trolley at about 7.30 p.m., the local villagers gathered at the place of occurrence and injured persons were taken to Goel Hospital by an auto rickshaw, in that accident deceased Dr. Pooja Verma was seriously injured, the mother and father of Petitioner No. 1 have also suffered head injuries, the deceased Dr. Pooja Verma was requiring a ventilator, as the ventilator was not available in Goel Hospital then she was taken into Om Hospital Palwal where she was admitted at a out 8.00 p.m., since the condition of the deceased Dr. Pooja Verma and other injured became stable at Om Hospital, they were shifted to Escort Hospital and Research Centre, Faridabad where they were admitted at about 10.00 p.m. where proper treatment was provided to the deceased but unfortunately Dr. Pooja Verma succumbed to her injuries on 16.12.2008 at Escort Hospital, the expenses of treatment were borne by the Petitioners.
(iv) The F.I.R. of the alleged accident was lodged at P.S. Camp Colony, District Faridabad in Case Crime No. 447 of 2008 on 15.12.2008 at 2.40 p.m. by Petitioner No. 2 Manoj Kumar, in which the charge-sheet has been submitted against Dharampal, the tractor driver under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304A, I.P.C., the accused Dharampal, has appeared before the Court concerned and has been released on bail.
(v) Due to ulterior motive, on 19.12.2008, the Respondent No. 3 filed a complaint with the Additional S.H.O. at Palwal and on 4.1.2009 he sent another complaint to S.S.P., Palwal making the allegation of murder against the Petitioners, the same was inquired into by Dy. S.P., Palwal and he came to the conclusion that the allegation made against the Petitioners are false, the deceased has sustained injuries in an accident. Thereafter, the application u/s 156(3), Cr. P.C. was filed by Respondent No. 3 in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun at Orai, the same was illegally allowed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun on 28.1.2009 because the alleged accident has not occurred within the territory of the district Jalaun, therefore, the C.J.M., Jalaun was not having the territorial jurisdiction to pass such order and the S.H.O. of P.S. Kotwali Orai was illegally directed to register a case who has also illegally registered the case in Case Crime No. 98 of 2009 u/s 302, I.P.C. because the alleged incident has not occurred within the territory of Police Station Kotwali, Orai.
(vi) The impugned F.I.R. is also barred by the provisions of Section 162, Cr. P.C. because the Respondent No. 3 had already lodged a report at P.S. Palwal (Haryana), it has been duly investigated and found to be false, the second F.I.R. is barred by the provisions of Section 162, Cr. P.C.
(vii) The present F.I.R. has been lodged due to mala fide so that the Petitioners may be unnecessarily harassed. The Petitioners are the persons of high respect, they are commanding good reputation in the society in case they are arrested in the present case, they shall suffer irreparable loss, therefore, the impugned F.I.R. and its investigation may be quashed.
5. In reply to the above contention, it is submitted by the learned A.G.A. that on the basis of the allegations made in the F.I.R., prima facie, offence u/s 302, I.P.C. is made out because the deceased has been murdered in a pre-planned manner so that the colour of accident may be given. The offence is cognizable offence. The first informant had not lodged any other F.I.R., he had made the complaint to S.H.O. P.S. Camp, Palwal but no case was registered on his complaint. In the present case, the Petitioner No. 2 had lodged the F.I.R. of the incident at Thana Camp Palwal in Case Crime No. 447 of 2008 on 15.12.2008, it is delayed F.I.R., no F.I.R. was lodged on 14.12.2008, the F.I.R. has been lodged to give the colour of accident, it is a case of pre-planned murder, it was lodged after great thought and consultation in which the charge-sheet has been submitted against the person who was driving the Tractor, i.e., Dharampal. The F.I.R. itself is very clear that in furtherance of a pre-planned scheme and conspiracy, the Petitioners came to the house of the deceased''s uncle on 13.12.2008 and persuaded to go in their company to Agra, they brought the deceased to Agra on 13.12.2008 where they stayed on 14.12.2008, they proceeded towards Delhi but on way to Delhi, deliberately the car which was driven by Petitioner No. 1 was collided with a tractor from the side where the deceased was sitting and by opening the door she was pushed down consequently she sustained injuries. The act done by the Petitioners is constituting the offence of murder. It is also surprising that from both the versions, the Petitioner No. 1 was driving vehicle which was collided with the tractor having trolley but the Petitioner No. 1 did not sustain any injury even injured persons including the deceased were not brought to Goel Hospital as well as Om Hospital by Petitioner No. 1, they were admitted by some unknown persons as the record shows. It also shows that for concocting the story of murder as of accident in a pre-planned manner, the car was collided by Petitioner No. 1 with the tractor having the trolley. So far as the territorial jurisdiction is concerned, in furtherance of pre-planned scheme, the deceased was brought from Orai for the purpose of committing her murder to give effect to a hatched conspiracy by the Petitioners, in such circumstances, the court of Jalaun at Orai was having the territorial jurisdiction to allow the application u/s 156(3), Cr. P.C. and the S.H.O. of Police Station Kotwali, Orai was having the jurisdiction to lodge the F.I.R. because the part of the cause of action has occurred in the territorial jurisdiction of P.S. Kotwali, Orai.
6. From the perusal of the record including the impugned F.I.R. it appears that the submission made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners regarding the provisions of Section 162, Cr. P.C. barring the impugned F.I.R. is having no substance because it is not second F.I.R., as the complaints made by the Respondent No. 3 to S.H.O. Camp Colony, Palwal and S.S.P. Palwal were not registered as first information report because in respect of the that incident the F.I.R. was already lodged by the Petitioner No. 2 with a different version in Case Crime No. 447 of 2008 in which the charge-sheet was submitted. In respect of the one incident, the F.I.R.s having the different version can be registered. In the present case, from the side of the accused, the version of the accident was taken its F.I.R. has been registered but from the side of the Respondent No. 3, the F.I.R. having the different version, i.e., of murder may be lodged, therefore, the provisions of Section 162, Cr. P.C. are not applicable in the present case.
7. So far as the ground of mala fide is concerned, in this case, there is nothing to show that F.I.R. has been lodged due to ulterior motive. The deceased has been murdered in a pre-planned manner and there is no ground for quashing the F.I.R. and its investigation and in case of the murder, the arrest of the Petitioners, who are named in the F.I.R. may not be stayed.
8. So far as the issue of territorial jurisdiction is concerned, it appears that on the basis of allegations made therein it appears that in a pre-planned manner for committing the murder of the deceased she was taken from Orai to Agra by the Petitioners on 13.12.2008, thereafter on 14.12.2008 they proceeded towards Delhi but on way to Delhi the Car driven by the Petitioner No. 1 was deliberately collided with a tractor having the trolley, the door of the car was opened and the deceased was pushed down in which she sustained injuries, It discloses the commission of the offence of murder which is a cognizable offence, the Petitioners are named in the F.I.R., we are of the view that according to the allegations made in the F.I.R., the deceased was persuaded at Orai by the Petitioners and she was brought by them from Orai with intention to commit her murder, consequently on the next day on way to Delhi, the car in which the deceased was sitting was collided by Petitioner No. 1, its door was opened and she was pushed down in which she sustained serious injuries. Therefore, the part of cause of action was at Orai also. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Orai has not committed any error in passing the order dated 28.1.2009 by which the application u/s 156(3), Cr. P.C. has been allowed and the S.H.O. of P.S. Kotwali, Orai has also not committed any error in lodging the F.I.R. on 17.2.2009 in Case Crime No. 98 of 2009 u/s 302, I.P.C. in pursuance of order dated 28.1.2009, the part of cause of action has occurred within the jurisdiction of Police Station Kotwali, Orai, therefore, the S.H.O. was having the jurisdiction to lodge the F.I.R. and he is having the jurisdiction of investigation also, the F.I.R. of any case may be registered at any police station even the incident has occurred within the area of other police station but the same may be transferred to proper police station for the purpose of registering the crime number and doing the investigation. Here in the present case, such principle is not applicable because the part of cause of action has occurred in the territory of Police Station Kotwali, Orai, therefore, the C.J.M., Jalaun, Orai was having the territorial jurisdiction of passing the orders dated 28.1.2009 and S.H.O. of Police Station Kotwali was having the territorial jurisdiction to lodge the F.I.R.
9. The next issue raised by counsel for the Petitioners is that the impugned F.I.R. is barred by Section 162, Cr. P.C., but record shows that prior to registering the F.I.R. of this case, in respect of the same allegation no case was registered at Police Station Camp Palwal, the impugned F.I.R. is the first F.I.R., the alleged complaint given by Respondent No. 3 to S.H.O. of Thana Camp Colony, Palwal and S.S.P., Palwal were not registered as case crime number whereas an F.I.R. was lodged by Petitioner No. 2 at Police Station Thana Camp in Case No. 447 of 2008 under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A, I.P.C. on 15.12.2008, it was investigated and after investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted against Dharampal, the driver of the tractor. The report in respect of the complaint lodged by the Respondent No. 3 was submitted by Dy. S.P. regarding the investigation done in Case Crime No. 447 of 2008. The provisions of Section 162, Cr. P.C. are not applicable in the present case, It is settled position of law that in respect of the same incident, the F.I.R.s of different versions can be registered. In the present case also, the F.I.R. has been lodged by the Petitioner No. 2 who is an accused in the present case with a version of accident. Contrary to it, in respect of the same incident, the F.I.R. has been lodged by Respondent No. 3 making the allegation of murder, such F.I.R. lodged by Respondent No. 3 is not barred by the law. There is no ground showing that the impugned F.I.R. has been lodged with mala fide. The impugned F.I.R. is constituting the cognizable offence, the F.I.R. is not barred by any provision of law and there is no ground for quashing the same , therefore, the prayer for quashing the F.I.R. is refused as well as prayer for staying the arrest of the Petitioners is also refused.
10. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case it is directed that in case Petitioners appear before the Court concerned within 30 days from today and apply for bail, the same shall be heard and disposed of in view of
11. The Full Bench of this Court has held in the aforementioned case:
1. Even if a cognizable offence is disclosed in the F.I.R. or complaint the arrest of the accused is not a must, rather the police officer should be guided by the decision of the Supreme Court in
2. The High Court should ordinarily not direct any subordinate court to decide the bail application the same day, as that would be interfering with the judicial discretion of the Court hearing the bail application. However, as stated above, when the bail application is u/s 437, Cr. P.C. ordinarily the Magistrate should himself decide the bail application the same day, and if he decides in a rare and exceptional case not to decide it on the same day, he must record his reasons in writing. As regards the application u/s 439, Cr. P.C. it is in the discretion of the learned Sessions Judge, considering the facts and circumstances whether to decide the bail application the same day or not, and it is also in his discretion to grant interim bail the same day subject to the final decision on the bail application later.
12. The above view has been approved by the Hon''ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 538 of 2009, Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P., 2009 (2) Supreme 600.
With this direction, this petition is finally disposed.
