Case Note & Summary
The case arose from a criminal petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to quash an FIR registered at Hosakote Police Station as Crime No.224/2018 for offences punishable under Sections 504, 332, and 353 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The dispute originated from an incident on 18th April 2018, during the Karnataka Legislative Assembly elections, when the Bharatiya Janata Party had erected unauthorized buntings for the visit of a national leader. The Municipal Commissioner and Head of the Flying Squad, Nisar Ahmed (first respondent), alleged that he had deployed a health inspector to remove these buntings. Upon removal, the petitioner, B.V. Byre Gowda, a local BJP leader, allegedly obstructed the officials and abused them, and another individual, Ashok, assaulted the complainant. Interestingly, based on the same incident, the complainant registered two separate complaints within a span of 15 minutes: the first at 9:00 a.m. (Crime No.223/2018) for offences under Section 127A of the Representation of People Act, 1951, Section 3 of the Karnataka Open Place Disfigurement Act, 1981, and Section 171H IPC; and the second at 9:15 a.m. (Crime No.224/2018) for offences under Sections 504, 332, and 353 IPC. The petitioner contended that the registration of a second FIR for the same occurrence was legally impermissible and an abuse of the criminal process. The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether the second FIR could stand in light of the binding principle that only one FIR may be registered for a single incident. The petitioner relied heavily on the constitution bench judgment in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC 181, which held that the registration of multiple FIRs for the same incident is contrary to the scheme of the Code and constitutes an abuse of the investigatory power. Several other Supreme Court precedents were cited, including Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash, (2004) 13 SCC 292 and Babubhai v. State of Gujarat, (2010) 12 SCC 254, which reaffirmed this position. The respondent, on the other hand, argued that the two FIRs addressed different offences arising from the same transaction and that the matter should be left for trial. Reliance was placed on Majoji Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand, (2019) 5 SCC 663 and earlier cases like Ram Lal Narang v. State (Delhi Admin.), (1979) 2 SCC 322 to contend that a second FIR could be justified if it disclosed a different facet of the incident. The court, after examining the factual matrix, noted that the time, place, and nature of the occurrence were identical for both FIRs. The complainant's own version showed that the entire episode—from the removal of buntings to the alleged abuse and assault—unfolded continuously between 6 a.m. and 9 a.m. at J.C. Circle. Thus, splitting the incident into two complaints amounted to creating a false distinction and was impermissible. The court reiterated the dictum from T.T. Antony that a second FIR is only permissible if it pertains to a counter-complaint or a completely distinct and unrelated occurrence. Since neither exception applied, the second FIR in Crime No.224/2018 was held to be legally invalid and an abuse of process. Consequently, the High Court allowed the criminal petition and quashed the FIR bearing Crime No.224/2018 registered at Hosakote Police Station. The court emphasized that the continuation of proceedings on the second FIR would be contrary to the settled principles of criminal jurisprudence and would cause prejudice to the accused. The judgment affirmed the singular FIR rule and provided relief to the petitioner, while the proceedings in the first FIR (Crime No.223/2018) were left to continue before the trial court.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - FIR/Investigation - Second FIR on Same Incident - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Sections 154, 482 - The court considered the principles from T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala that only one FIR can be registered for one incident; second FIR amounts to abuse of process - Held that in the present case, two FIRs (Crime No.223/2018 and 224/2018) arose from the same incident of removal of unauthorized buntings on 18-04-2018, and registration of second FIR is impermissible; accordingly, FIR in Crime No.224/2018 quashed (Paras 10-35).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the second complaint which results in second FIR being registered is permissible in the facts of the case
Final Decision
Criminal petition allowed; FIR in Crime No.224/2018 registered at Hosakote Police Station for offences under Sections 504, 332, 353 IPC quashed.
Law Points
- Single FIR per incident
- multiple FIRs impermissible
- second FIR abuse of process
- investigation on same incident cannot be split
