Court Upholds Order To Not Register Separate FIR For Same Incident

Magistrate asked for an action taken report from the police and found that an FIR regarding the cause of the injury sustained by Khan was already registered at Shastri Park police station.

Court gavel ( Image Source :Getty )

A sessions court here has upheld a magisterial court's order to not register a second FIR in the matter related to a man suffering injuries in February 2020 when the northeast Delhi riots had taken place. The court observed, "There cannot be...another FIR in respect of the same cause of action." The court was hearing a revision petition filed by Akram Khan, which said the magisterial court was wrong in dismissing his plea seeking directions to the police for registration of an FIR regarding Khan sustaining a grievous injury during the northeast Delhi riots on February 24, 2020.

"I do not find any merit in the contention of the petitioner as raised in the present petition, nor do I find any legal infirmity in the impugned order. In view of my forgoing discussions, observations and findings, the present revision petition is rejected," Additional Sessions Judge Pulastya Pramachala said in the order passed on Tuesday.

The judge said before deciding on an application for directing the investigation, the magistrate concerned was empowered to conduct an enquiry into the allegations and also to ascertain the veracity of the allegations.

In the present case, the Metropolitan Magistrate asked for an action taken report from the police and found that an FIR regarding the cause of the injury sustained by Khan was already registered at Shastri Park police station, the judge said.

"The petitioner has not joined the investigation, rather...it appears that the petitioner is aggrieved of the sections for which FIR was registered and it also appears that he has a different version to narrate," the court said.

During the investigation, the police were supposed to collect the evidence and unless Khan joined the investigation, there was no means for the police to look for the relevant piece of evidence, the court said.

In case, the police reached a conclusion, which was not acceptable to Khan, he could file a protest petition against the final investigation report, the court said.

Noting that after the registration of the first FIR, Khan projected a different version of the incident, the court said that a second FIR cannot be registered for the same cause of action.

The court also said instead of narrating the incident to the IO, Khan was “more interested” in the registration of a separate FIR.

“In the petition, he has pleaded that it is mandatory to register the second FIR on the basis of a different version, however, no such case law was presented before me,” the judge said.

Thus, the magisterial court was correct in saying that no ground for registering another FIR was made out, the judge added.

According to the medico-legal case prepared by doctors on the basis of Khan’s disclosure, he was admitted to a hospital on February 24, 2020, after an alleged road traffic accident near Shastri Park police station.

Subsequently, the Shastri Park police station registered an FIR for the offences of rash driving and causing hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others.

Khan, however, moved an application before the magisterial court for registration of FIR at Dayalpur police station, saying he sustained grievous injuries during the riots in the Shiv Vihar area.

Against the court's order rejecting his application, Khan filed the present revision petition.

(This report has been published as part of the auto-generated syndicate wire feed. No editing has been done in the headline or the body by ABP Live.)