2017 Saharanpur rioting: Allahabad HC dismisses Nagina MP’s pleas challenging criminal proceedings

Court noted that merely because incidents occurred on the same day, subsequent FIRs cannot be quashed if their “ambit is different” and the offences were committed at different places and times.

The Allahabad high court has dismissed the petitions filed by MP from UP’s Nagina and BHIM Army chief Chandrashekhar Ravan seeking to quash criminal proceedings concerning four FIRs lodged against him in connection with the 2017 Saharanpur rioting incident.

The court also said in cases where a “larger conspiracy” cannot be ruled out, as was the case in the present matter, the separate and subsequent FIRs are permissible. (For Representation)

Justice Sameer Jain, while passing the order on December 17, noted that merely because incidents occurred on the same day, subsequent FIRs cannot be quashed if their “ambit is different” and the offences were committed at different places and times.

The petitioner filed four petitions challenging the FIRs and chargesheets. The advocate appearing for Chandrashekhar argued that the first FIR was lodged on May 9, 2017, alleging that he and his associates (a mob of 250-300 people) had created a jam, assaulted administrative officers, police officials with illegal weapons and also damaged public property.

This FIR was lodged under sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 332, 336, 427, 436, 353 and 323 of the IPC and Section ¾ the Public Property Damages Act. He contended that the four subsequent FIRs lodged on the same day pertained to the same mob, the same set of evidence and the same incidents occurring within the “same transaction”.

It was contended that as per the SC’s verdict in T.T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala and Babubhai Vs. State of Gujarat, the second FIR on the same set of facts is impermissible and constitutes an abuse of the process of law.

Considering an earlier judgment of the Supreme Court, the court observed, “Therefore, from this judgment it reflects, the second FIR is permissible if the version of this FIR is different and if new discovery is made on factual foundations. As per this judgment if discovery about larger conspiracy is disclosed then also second FIR is permissible.”

“In case at hand, it reflects, the mob relating to Bheem Army continuously for hours committed arson and damaging properties at different places at different time... the arguments advanced by learned AAG that it appears to be a case which involves larger conspiracy cannot be ruled out and therefore... it is not desirable to quash the proceedings arising out of subsequent FIRs,” the court added.

The court also said in cases where a “larger conspiracy” cannot be ruled out, as was the case in the present matter, the separate and subsequent FIRs are permissible.