Whether court should quash second FIR if it is based same facts with additional sections under IPC?

The Respondent then filed an application Under Section 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure which was forwarded by the Magistrate to the police leading to registration of FIR dated 09.10.2008. The allegations are similar that the Appellant put up an imposter in place of the Respondent and along with one Sushil Kumar Singh and Arvind on the basis of a general power of attorney, which the Respondent had never executed, sold his lands. The FIR itself recites that earlier also the Appellant had sold the lands of the Respondent on the basis of same general power of attorney, but conceals the order of acquittal dated 07.08.1998, and also the institution of Civil Suit No. 353 of 2007 for annulment of the same.

11. It is, therefore, apparent that the subject matter of both the FIRs is the same general power of attorney dated 02.05.1985 and the sales made by the Appellant in pursuance of the same. If the substratum of the two FIRs are common, the mere addition of Sections 467, 468 and 471 in the subsequent FIR cannot be considered as different ingredients to justify the latter FIR as being based on different materials, allegations and grounds.

12. Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides as follows:

300. Person once convicted or acquitted not to be tried for same offence.

(1) A person who has once been tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction for an offence and convicted or acquitted of such offence shall, while such conviction or acquittal remains in force, not be liable to be tried again for the same offence, nor on the same facts for any other offence for which a different charge from the one made against him might have been made Under Sub-section (1) of Section 221, or for which he might have been convicted Under Sub-section (2) thereof.

13. In view of the conclusion that the substratum of the two FIRs are the same and that the Appellant has already stood acquitted on 07.08.1998 of the charge with regard to forging any general power of attorney of the Respondent, we are of the considered opinion that the subsequent prosecution of the Appellant in FIR No. 114 of 2008 dated 09.10.2008 is completely unsustainable. In the result, the FIR dated 09.10.2008, the orders dated 18.12.2015, 31.05.2016 and the impugned order dated 01.03.2017 are set aside.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 237 of 2020 

Decided On: 07.02.2020

Prem Chand Singh  Vs.  The State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Navin Sinha and Krishna Murari, JJ.

Citation: (2020) 3 SCC 54,MANU/SC/0136/2020

Print Page

Supreme Court: Accused can not be prosecuted on the second FIR if the substratum of both the FIR are same

The Respondent then filed an application Under Section 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure which was forwarded by the Magistrate to the police leading to registration of FIR dated 09.10.2008. The allegations are similar that the Appellant put up an imposter in place of the Respondent and along with one Sushil Kumar Singh and Arvind on the basis of a general power of attorney, which the Respondent had never executed, sold his lands. The FIR itself recites that earlier also the Appellant had sold the lands of the Respondent on the basis of same general power of attorney, but conceals the order of acquittal dated 07.08.1998, and also the institution of Civil Suit No. 353 of 2007 for annulment of the same.

11. It is, therefore, apparent that the subject matter of both the FIRs is the same general power of attorney dated 02.05.1985 and the sales made by the Appellant in pursuance of the same. If the substratum of the two FIRs are common, the mere addition of Sections 467, 468 and 471 in the subsequent FIR cannot be considered as different ingredients to justify the latter FIR as being based on different materials, allegations and grounds.

12. Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides as follows:

300. Person once convicted or acquitted not to be tried for same offence.

(1) A person who has once been tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction for an offence and convicted or acquitted of such offence shall, while such conviction or acquittal remains in force, not be liable to be tried again for the same offence, nor on the same facts for any other offence for which a different charge from the one made against him might have been made Under Sub-section (1) of Section 221, or for which he might have been convicted Under Sub-section (2) thereof.

13. In view of the conclusion that the substratum of the two FIRs are the same and that the Appellant has already stood acquitted on 07.08.1998 of the charge with regard to forging any general power of attorney of the Respondent, we are of the considered opinion that the subsequent prosecution of the Appellant in FIR No. 114 of 2008 dated 09.10.2008 is completely unsustainable. In the result, the FIR dated 09.10.2008, the orders dated 18.12.2015, 31.05.2016 and the impugned order dated 01.03.2017 are set aside.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 237 of 2020 

Decided On: 07.02.2020

 Prem Chand Singh  Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Navin Sinha and Krishna Murari, JJ.

Print Page

Whether second FIR can be registered in respect of same incident?

Be that as it may, if the law laid down by this Court in T.T. Antony case 1 is to be accepted as holding that a second complaint in regard to the same incident filed as a counter-complaint is prohibited under the Code then, in our opinion, such conclusion would lead to serious consequences. This will be clear from the hypothetical example given hereinbelow i.e. if in regard to a crime committed by the real Accused he takes the first opportunity to lodge a false complaint and the same is registered by the jurisdictional police then the aggrieved victim of such crime will be precluded from lodging a complaint giving his version of the incident in question, consequently he will be deprived of his legitimated right to bring the real Accused to book. This cannot be the purport of the Code.

24. From the aforesaid decisions, it is quite luminous that the lodgment of two FIRs is not permissible in respect of one and the same incident. The concept of sameness has been given a restricted meaning. It does not encompass filing of a counter-FIR relating to the same or connected cognizable offence. What is prohibited is any further complaint by the same complainant and others against the same Accused subsequent to the registration of the case under the Code, for an investigation in that regard would have already commenced and allowing registration of further complaint would amount to an improvement of the facts mentioned in the original complaint. As is further made clear by the three-Judge Bench in Upkar Singh, the prohibition does not cover the allegations made by the Accused in the first FIR alleging a different version of the same incident. Thus, rival versions in respect of the same incident do take different shapes and in that event, lodgment of two FIRs is permissible.

31. Keeping the aforesaid principle of law in mind when we examine the facts of the case at hand, we find that the second FIR filed by the Appellant against Respondent No. 3 though related to the same incident for which the first FIR was filed by Respondent No. 2 against the Appellant, Respondent No. 3 and three Bank officials, yet the second FIR being in the nature of a counter-complaint against Respondent No. 3 was legally maintainable and could be entertained for being tried on its merits.

32. In other words, there is no prohibition in law to file the second FIR and once it is filed, such FIR is capable of being taken note of and tried on merits in accordance with law.

33. It is for the reasons that firstly, the second FIR was not filed by the same person, who had filed the first FIR. Had it been so, then the situation would have been somewhat different. Such was not the case here; Second, it was filed by the Appellant as a counter-complaint against Respondent No. 3; Third, the first FIR was against five persons based on one set of allegations whereas the second FIR was based on the allegations different from the allegations made in the first FIR.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 408 of 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 7970 of 2014)

Decided On: 19.03.2018

 P. Sreekumar Vs. State of Kerala and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R.K. Agrawal and Abhay Manohar Sapre, JJ.

Citation: AIR 2018 SC 1482

Print Page

When registration of second FIR is permissible relating to same incident?

It is well settled principle of law that there can be no second FIR in the event of any further information being received by the investigating agency in respect of offence or the same occurrence or incident giving rise to one or more offences for which chargesheet has already been filed by the investigating agency. The recourse available with the investigating agency in the said situation is to conduct further investigation normally with the leave of the court as provided Under Sub-section (8) to Section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure The reliance is placed on the decision of this Court rendered in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala MANU/SC/0365/2001 : (2001) 6 SCC 181, relevant paras of which read thus:

19. The scheme of Code of Criminal Procedure is that an officer in charge of a police station has to commence investigation as provided in Section 156 or 157 Code of Criminal Procedure on the basis of entry of the first information report, on coming to know of the commission of a cognizable offence. On completion of investigation and on the basis of the evidence collected, he has to form an opinion Under Section 169 or 170 Code of Criminal Procedure, as the case may be, and forward his report to the Magistrate concerned Under Section 173(2) Code of Criminal Procedure.However, even after filing such a report, if he comes into possession of further information or material, he need not register a fresh FIR; he is empowered to make further investigation, normally with the leave of the court, and where during further investigation he collects further evidence, oral or documentary, he is obliged to forward the same with one or more further reports; this is the import of Sub-section (8) of Section 173 Code of Criminal Procedure.
xx xx xx
21....The 1973 Code of Criminal Procedure specifically provides for further investigation after forwarding of report Under Sub-section (2) of Section 173 Code of Criminal Procedure and forwarding of further report or reports to the Magistrate concerned Under Section 173(8) Code of Criminal Procedure. It follows that if the gravamen of the charges in the two FIRs - the first and the second - is in truth and substance the same, registering the second FIR and making fresh investigation and forwarding report Under Section 173 Code of Criminal Procedure will be irregular and the court cannot take cognizance of the same.
(Emphasis supplied)

26. However, this principle of law is not applicable to the fact situation in the instant case as the substance of the allegations in the said two FIRs is different. The first FIR deals with offences punishable Under Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the Act, whereas, the second FIR deals with the offences punishable Under Sections 419 and 420 of Indian Penal Code which are alleged to have committed during the course of investigation of the case in the first FIR. This Court is of the view that the alleged offences under the second FIR in substance are distinct from the offences under the first FIR and they cannot, in any case, said to be in the form of the part of same transaction with the alleged offences under the first FIR. Therefore, no question of further investigation could be made by the investigating agency on the alleged offences arisen as the term "further investigation" occurred Under Sub-section (8) to Section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure connotes the investigation of the case in continuation of the earlier investigation with respect to which the chargesheet has already been filed.

Equivalent Citation: 2016(1)SCALE200,AIR 2016 SC373

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 2016 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 975 of 2015)

Decided On: 07.01.2016

Appellants: Awadesh Kumar Jha and Ors.
Vs.
Respondent: The State of Bihar

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:T.S. Thakur, C.J.I. and V. Gopala Gowda, J.

Print Page