1. Heard learned Senior Counsel/counsel for the parties.

2. Leave granted.

3. The present appeal has been filed assailing the impugned judgment and order dated 27.09.2024 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Application No. 31796 of 2024 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.'), whereby the High Court disposed of the petition seeking quashing of the charge sheet dated 26.10.2012 and summoning order dated 04.03.2013 arising out of FIR No. 126 of 2012 registered at Police Station Sadabad, District Hathras, Uttar Pradesh, under Sections 259, 260, 272, 273, 420, 467, 468 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC') and Sections 60 & 62 of the Excise Act.

4. In the present case, the appellant is aggrieved by lodging of FIR No. 126/2012 (First FIR), which according to him, was identical to FIR No. 127/2012(Second FIR), both based on the same facts and under the same provisions of law.

5. Mr. Ardhendmauli Kumar Prasad, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, submits that on 18.02.2012, an incident took place wherein the police recovered certain contraband liquor. This led to a raid at another location from where contraband liquor was also allegedly recovered. However, the police, after conducting raids at both places, registered two separate FIRs one after the other under the same Sections, on the very same facts relating to both raids.

6. It was submitted that in the second FIR i.e., FIR No. 127/2012, the appellant, after spending some time behind bars, was enlarged on bail. However, the appellant, recently, became aware of the fact that, on identical allegations arising out of the same incident/occurrence, an earlier FIR had also been registered in the same Police Station on the same day, being FIR No. 126/2012. This prompted the appellant to move the High Court seeking quashing of the FIR No. 126 of 2012, on the ground that once an FIR had already been lodged for the incident, another FIR could not have been registered.

7. The High Court, however, did not interfere in the matter and observed that it would be open to the appellant to raise all issues before the trial Court and pray for recall of the summoning order. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant has approached this Court.

8. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submitted that there has been a clear infraction of settled principles of law, and that institution of two FIRs is not only an abuse of the process of the Court but also infringes the constitutional rights of the appellant to fair consideration by the Court, especially in criminal proceedings. It was submitted that even otherwise, two FIRs based on exactly the same incident cannot proceed simultaneously.

9. Earlier, noticing the peculiar facts, this Court had directed the Superintendent of Police, Hathras, to be present before this Court. He has appeared in person and filed an affidavit explaining the factual position. His stand is that the matter relates to the year 2012 and the discrepancy was never noticed at any stage, and only when the present case was filed and notice was issued, the Superintendent of Police became aware of it. However, he further stated that the second FIR is not maintainable and he has also issued show cause to three Senior Officers, including the then SHO and their response is awaited for completion of departmental inquiry.

10. The Superintendent of Police, Hathras, has assured this Court that the inquiry will be taken to its logical conclusion without showing any favour to any party.

11. In view of the bona fide explanation offered by the present Superintendent of Police, Hathras, we close the issue insofar as his personal responsibility is concerned.

12. However, coming to the merits of the present case, learned counsel for the respondent-State has fairly submitted that the Court may quash the second FIR.

13. Having regard to the aforesaid, the appeal stands allowed. FIR No. 127 of 2012 is quashed, and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are also quashed.

14. As the appellant had already been granted bail vide order dated 03.03.2012 passed by the trial Court, Hathras, Uttar Pradesh in FIR No. 127 of 2012, which is identical to FIR No. 126 of 2012 and which shall now proceed, we deem it appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the appellant in the case arising out of FIR No. 126/2012.

15. Accordingly, the appellant shall be released on bail, upon surrendering before the Court concerned, subject to such terms and conditions as the trial Court may impose in the case pertaining to FIR No. 126/2012. The appellant shall also co-operate with the trial/investigation.

16. It shall be open to the prosecution to move an application before the trial Court, where both the cases were simultaneously proceeding to maintain the evidence which has already been recorded in the FIR just quashed, i.e., FIR No. 127/2012. The trial Court shall consider such application after hearing the parties concerned and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law.

17. The personal appearance of the Superintendent of Police, Hathras, is dispensed with.

18. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.