In MANU/SC/0329/2013 : (2013) 6 SCC 348 in the case of Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. CBI 8b others, in head note F', the Apex Court held as under:--
"Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Ss.154 to 162, 173(8), 173(2), 169, 170 and 482 - FIR, initial investigation, further investigation, first charge-sheet, subsequent/supplementary charge-sheet(s) and second FIR - Scheme of Cr.P.C., explained -Duty of IO to investigate connected offences committed in course of same transaction - Held, there can be no second FIR and, consequently, there can be no fresh investigation on receipt of every subsequent information in respect of the same cognizable offence or the same occurrence or incident giving rise to one or more cognizable offences - Rather, investigating agency may investigate further upon receipt of subsequent information, normally with the leave of Magistrate/court and where during further investigation, investigating agency collects further evidence, oral or documentary, it is obliged to forward the same with one or more supplementary reports/charge-sheets to court."
24. From the ratio laid down in the above decisions of the Apex Court, it is manifest that the registration of second FIR or multiple FIRs in respect of offences committed in the same transactions is impermissible. Considering the scheme of Cr.P.C., fundamental rights of the accused guaranteed under Article 20, 21 and 14 of the Constitution of India and the stand of Lokayukta, FIR in Cr. No. 57/2010 is held to be invalid. Subjecting citizens to fresh investigation on the basis of subsequent FIR or second FIR is abuse of power. It is a fit case to exercise inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the second FIR.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
Criminal Petition No. 5102 of 2015
Decided On: 10.03.2016
S.V. Srinivas
Vs.
State of Karnataka
Vs.
State of Karnataka
Coram:P.D. Waingankar, J.
Citation: 2016 CRLJ(NOC)321 KAR
