Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Hiro Kewalramani, filed a criminal writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of FIR No.79/2016 registered at Anjuna Police Station, Goa, and the consequent chargesheet filed before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mapusa. The FIR alleged offences under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, including Sections 384, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 474, 109, 114, 115, 182, 193, 195, 199, 200, 205, 201, 120-B, 511 read with Section 34. The petitioner was accused no.9 in the impugned FIR. The principal ground for quashing was that the second impugned FIR was not competent, as a prior complaint had been lodged by the same complainant (respondent no.3) with Sakinaka Police Station, Mumbai, on 18/02/2016 and 11/03/2016, leading to FIR No.478/2016 against accused no.1 Anil Jaisinghani and others. The petitioner contended that the second FIR pertained to the same transaction and was thus barred. The court examined the brief facts: one Tulika Katare (accused no.2 in the impugned FIR) had filed a complaint on 11/02/2016 alleging sexual assault by respondent no.3, leading to Crime No.17/2016. The court considered the legal issue of whether a second FIR on the same set of facts is maintainable. The petitioner argued that the earlier FIR at Sakinaka covered the same allegations, and the second FIR was an abuse of process. The respondents opposed the petition. The court, after hearing arguments, held that the second FIR was not maintainable as it was based on the same transaction as the earlier FIR. The court quashed FIR No.79/2016 and the consequent chargesheet, allowing the petition.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of FIR - Second FIR - Maintainability - The petitioner sought quashing of FIR No.79/2016 and consequent chargesheet on the ground that a second FIR on the same transaction is not competent. The court examined whether the subsequent FIR was based on the same set of facts as the earlier FIR No.478/2016 registered at Sakinaka Police Station. Held that the second FIR is not maintainable as it pertains to the same transaction and the earlier FIR covers the allegations. (Paras 2-5) B) Criminal Procedure - Abuse of Process - Multiple FIRs - The court considered the principle that multiple FIRs for the same cause of action amount to abuse of process of law. The petitioner argued that the second FIR was filed to harass him. Held that allowing the second FIR to proceed would be an abuse of process, and thus the FIR and chargesheet are quashed. (Paras 6-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the second FIR registered at Anjuna Police Station is competent when a prior FIR on the same transaction was already registered at Sakinaka Police Station, Mumbai.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. FIR No.79/2016 registered at Anjuna Police Station and the consequent chargesheet are quashed.
Law Points
- Second FIR on same facts is not maintainable
- Article 226 of Constitution of India
- Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure
- 1973
- Sections 384
- 420
- 465
- 467
- 468
- 471
- 474
- 109
- 114
- 115
- 182
- 193
- 195
- 199
- 200
- 205
- 201
- 120-B
- 511 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code
- 1860
