When second complaint in respect of same incident is liable to be quashed?

While coming to this conclusion, even the recent law
laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court can also be taken
for assistance which is reported in (2015)11 SCC page
145 in the case of Kamla Kant Dubey Vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh and Others wherein it has been
specifically laid down that FIR need not contain
every single detail and every part of the prosecution
case and therefore, when main substratum is forming
part of the FIR, it is left to the investigating
authority to investigate in detail and therefore,
stray observations made in paragraph No.18 would
definitely lead to a situation that basic substratum
of the matter is already contained in the FIR. In the
present case on hand, simply because further
information are not contained as part of first FIR
thereof would not permit respondent No.2 to lodge the
second complaint with respect to very same
controversy. Consequential steps generated by
petitioner No.1 can well be examined during the
course of investigation and therefore, it seems that
this second complaint tantamount to have been used as
a lever to pressurise the petitioners which in no
circumstances can be permitted by this Court. The
Court is sufficiently empowered under section 482 of
Cr.P.C. to embark upon such an attempt if made to

misuse the process of law. Therefore, the background
of fact is sufficient enough to hold that second
complaint is required to be quashed in the interest
of justice.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 14624 of 2007

VIJAYCHANDRA PRAKASH SHUKLA & 2.
V
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1.

CORAM: MR.JUSTICE A.J. SHASTRI
Date : 27/01/2017

Print Page

Whether protection against double jeopardy is available against prosecution and punishment for different offence which also arises out of same incident?

 From a bare perusal of the above said fundamental right enshrined in Part III of the Constitution, it is vivid that the Constitutional protection against repeat prosecution and punishment is in regard to the same offence.

10. The said constitutional protection cannot be stretched to the extent of including protection against prosecution and punishment for a different offence, which also arises out of the same incident.

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Nadimuddin vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 September, 2015

M.Cr.C. No. 7642/2015

BENCH AT GWALIOR

Citation;2016 CRLJ1408 MP HC

Print Page

When investigating officer should not file multiple chargesheets relating to same incident?

Looking to the above said factual aspect pertaining to this case and law laid down by the Apex Court, it is clear that the whole of the incident that started from 4.30 p.m. to 6.00 p.m. are taken place in the same transaction and they have been done within short proximity of time and at nearby places, the mob has proceeded with a common object, the commonality is evident from the circumstances. Therefore, the Investigating Officer has failed in his duty in ascertaining that the whole of the incident taken place with the common object and when common object is established, and whatever the transaction that takes place with that common object within short proximity of time and place, several crime should not have been registered.

Even if such first information reports have been registered in ignorance of any law or the observations of the superior courts, the Investigating Officer atleast after it comes to his knowledge has to mend his conduct and thereafter, he has to take steps to correct himself though different crime numbers have been registered, he can make a request to the Court wherein on the basis of the charge sheet already been filed to file additional charge sheet under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C., instead of filing various charge sheets. In this background, so far as this case is concerned, the Investigating Officer has to take care and ascertain whether he can make a request to the Court to submit further charge sheets under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C., in connection with the charge sheets already been filed before the Court by closing the several crime numbers registered pertaining to the same transaction.

Equivalent Citation: 2015(3) AKR 379, 2015(2)KCCR1585,2015 CRLJ(NOC)460 KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (KALABURAGI BENCH)

Crl.P. Nos. 201108/2014, 

Decided On: 05.03.2015

Mallu and Ors.
Vs.
 The State of Karnataka and Ors.

Coram:K.N. Phaneendra, J.

Print Page

Whether second FIR by different person in respect of same incident is permissible?

If the involvement of the number of accused persons and the nature of the allegations are scrutinized, it becomes crystal clear that every FIR has a different spectrum. The allegations made are distinct and separate. It may be regarded as a counter complaint and cannot be stated that an effort has been made to improve the allegations that find place in the first FIR. It is well-nigh impossible to say that the principle of sameness gets attracted. We are inclined to think so, for if the said principle is made applicable to the case at hand and the investigation is scuttled by quashing the FIRs, the complainants in the other two FIRs would be deprived of justice. The appellants have lodged the FIR making the allegations against certain persons, but that does not debar the other aggrieved persons to move the court for direction of registration of an FIR as there have been other accused persons including the complainant in the first FIR involved in the forgery and fabrication of documents and getting benefits from the statutory authority. In the ultimate eventuate, how the trial would commence and be concluded is up to the concerned court. The appellants or any of the other complainants or the accused persons may move the appropriate court for a trial in one court. That is another aspect altogether. But to say that it is a second FIR relating to the same cause of action and the same incident and there is sameness of occurrence and an attempt has been made to improvise the case is not correct. Hence, we conclude and hold that the submission that the FIR lodged by the fourth respondent is a second FIR and is, therefore, liable to be quashed, does not merit acceptance.

Supreme Court of India

Surnder Kaushik & Ors. vs State Of U.P & Ors. on 14 February, 2013

Print Page