High Court of Gauhati
Binod Das and Ors. Vs. The State of Assam and Ors.
MANU/GH/0463/2019
18.06.2019
Criminal
A second or successive FIR filed in connection with same or connected cognizable offence committed in course of same transaction is not maintainable
In facts of present case, the Respondent No. 2 had lodged an F.I.R. on 15th December, 2016 based on which, case was registered under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). On completion of investigation, the police had submitted charge-sheet against the four accused persons named in the said F.I.R. However, within seven days of the F.I.R. dated 15th December, 2016, the Respondent No. 2, had lodged another F.I.R. on 21st December, 2016 based on which, Case has been registered.
The Petitioners have prayed for quashing the second First Information Report based on which, Case was registered under Sections 498(A), 354((b), 326, 305 and 34 of IPC, on the ground that, a second F.I.R. on the same occurrence is not permissible in the eye of law.
On careful examination of the FIR dated 15th December, 2016 and 21st December, 2016, it appears that, both the FIR had been lodged with a view to report the incident pertaining to the same occurrence. Although, there are some minor variations in the narrative in both the FIR, yet, present Court is of the opinion that such variation merely highlights different parts of the same transaction.
In the case of Babubhai, the Supreme Court has held that, if both the F.I.Rs. relate to the same occurrence and narrates incidents which are two or more parts of the same transaction, then the second F.I.R. would be liable to be quashed. In the case of T.T. Antony, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, a second or successive FIR, not being a counter-case, filed in connection with the same or connected cognizable offence alleged to have been committed in the course of the same transaction would not be maintainable.
In the present case, there is no dispute about the fact that, the informant of both the FIR is the same person and the nature of allegation pertaining to the commissioning of cognizable offence is also the same in both the cases. If that be so, the registration of a police case and further investigation in the matter based on the second FIR would not be permissible in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Babubhai and T.T. Antony.
Rather, in view of the law laid down in the case of Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah, it can at best be held that the FIR dated 21st December, 2016 merely furnishes further information to the investigating agency with regard to the same cognizable offence which was reported by the FIR dated 15th December, 2016. Second FIR dated 21st December, 2016, based on which All Women P.S. Case was registered, is unsustainable in the eye of law. The same is accordingly quashed. Revision petition stands disposed of.
Relevant
T.T. Antony vs. State of Kerala and Ors. MANU/SC/0365/2001
, Babubhai vs. State of Gujarat and Ors. MANU/SC/0643/2010
, Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah vs. The Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr. MANU/SC/0329/2013
Tags : Second FIR Proceedings Quashing of
Share : 
