PANJIM: The High Court of Bombay at Goa has quashed and set aside FIR registered by the Old Goa Police Station against the accused since the police had already registered a non-cognisable case against him.
After registering a non-cognisable case against Asif Khan Pathan of Carambolim, the police registered FIR against him for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 506 (II), 354, 509 and 427 of IPC.
Pathan filed a criminal writ petition before the High Court challenging the FIR on the ground that such FIR was a counterblast and that the police failed to follow the procedure as laid down in Section 155(2) of CrPC by obtaining the permission of the Magistrate since already a non-cognisable case was registered against him with regard to the same incident by the respondent’s wife on March 19, 2023.
Both, the petitioner and the respondent Shaji M K are residing in the same building which has nine flats at Carambolim. The trouble started when the respondent and other flat owners started quarrelling with the petitioner with regard to the parking space. The differences between the flat owners started frequently due to some garbage and illegal construction in the said apartments.
The petitioner filed complaints against the respondent and his wife, but the same were lodged as non-cognisable complaints.
During the annual meeting on March 19, when all the flat owners had gathered to discuss the agenda, without any reason, the respondent and few others started fighting with the petitioner and his wife and questioned them as to why a false complaint was lodged with the Old Goa police station in connection with the throwing of garbage, parking, maintenance issues, etc.
However, when the petitioner was in the police station, he was arrested under Section 151 of CrPC, and thereafter, he was produced before the Deputy Collector, who released him on a personal bond of Rs 5,000 and good behaviour.
On the next day i.e. March 20, Shaji M K went to the police station and lodged an FIR against the petitioner in connection with the same incident for which the police had already registered an NC complaint.
The Court observed that if the police had failed to record all the facts disclosed by complainant while registering NC complaint then the complainant failed to approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) of CrPC.
But no such procedure was adopted. Thus, it shows that the Police recorded the information correctly as disclosed by the informant on March 19 as non-cognisable case.
