Case Note & Summary
The applicants, husband and brother-in-law of the complainant, filed a criminal application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to quash a second First Information Report (FIR) registered against them. The complainant, wife of the first applicant, had earlier lodged an FIR on 29.09.2020 at Shirkhed Police Station, District Amravati, alleging offences of cruelty and criminal intimidation under Sections 498A, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, based on demands for dowry and harassment between 25.06.2020 and 04.07.2020. The first FIR included an allegation that on 03.07.2020, the applicants threatened to burn the complainant or hang her from a tree. A few months later, on 02.01.2021, the same complainant lodged a second FIR at Pinjar Police Station, District Akola, this time adding a specific allegation that on 03.07.2020, the second applicant actually poured petrol on her and the first applicant lit a matchstick, but she was saved by guests. This FIR was registered under Section 307 (attempt to murder) read with Section 34 IPC. The applicants contended that the second FIR pertained to the same incident and transaction already covered in the first FIR, and thus its registration was impermissible. The respondents argued that the second FIR involved a different incident and relied on the decision in Nirmal Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab. The court examined both FIRs and found that they referred to the same series of events between 25.06.2020 and 04.07.2020, and both specifically mentioned the incident of 03.07.2020; the only difference was the degree of detail regarding the attempted murder. Applying the test of sameness laid down by the Supreme Court in Babubhai v. State of Gujarat and the principle that successive FIRs for the same occurrence or transaction are not permissible, the court held that the second FIR was an abuse of process. The court also referred to T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala and Ram Lal Narang v. State of Delhi, emphasizing that while police can conduct further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC, filing of fresh FIRs for the same incident violates the statutory scheme and fundamental rights. The court quashed the impugned FIR dated 02.01.2021 but clarified that the complainant's statement could be treated as a further statement under Section 162 CrPC in the existing investigation of the first FIR.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Multiple FIRs - Same Incident - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), Sections 154, 162, 169, 170, 173, 482; Constitution of India, Articles 19, 21, 226, 227 - The second FIR registered on 02.01.2021 pertained to the same incident of 03.07.2020 already covered in the first FIR of 29.09.2020, forming part of the same transaction. Applying the test of sameness and the principle that successive FIRs for the same incident are impermissible, the second FIR is liable to be quashed. Held, second FIR quashed, but the statement therein may be treated as further statement under Section 162 CrPC in investigation of first FIR. (Paras 3, 8-14)
Issue of Consideration
Whether registration of the second FIR dated 02.01.2021 for the same incident and transaction as the first FIR dated 29.09.2020 was permissible and liable to be quashed.
Final Decision
The application is allowed. The second FIR (Crime No. 1/2021) dated 02.01.2021 registered at Pinjar Police Station is quashed. The statement of the complainant may be considered as a further statement under Section 162 CrPC in the investigation of the first FIR (Crime No. 214/2020).
Law Points
- FIR under Section 154 CrPC is a very important document
- commencement of investigation
- subsequent FIR test of sameness
- second FIR quashed if same incident or part of same transaction
- multiple FIRs impermissible
- further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC
- second FIR statement treated as further statement under Section 162 CrPC
- abuse of statutory power of investigation
- quashing under Section 482 CrPC or Article 226/227
