The Court dismissed the batch of writ petitions seeking quashing of multiple FIRs registered against the petitioners on the ground that the issues were covered by a prior Division Bench order. The Court held that the registrations were not illegal or arbitrary.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA r PRADESH AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH day of may TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT
WP.T ^°nourable dr justice K MANMADHA RAO
Between:
resident of Door N0.77-11-21 Pipula Road, 0pp.Stock Yard Gate, Ajit
Singh Nagar, Vijayawada-15. Krishna District.
Door No.25-1-19, C S.R.Road Dist. ■ Gandhi Nagar, Vijayawada-3, Krishana
-PETITIONERS^
AND
near Fire Station, Cumbum village Prakasam District.
-RESPONDENTS
-RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated i in the affidavit filed therewith the High Court may
2^
be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, Quashing or more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents in registering the Crime No. 3/2015, U/s 406.120-B420 of IPC and U/s 5 of APPDEF Act, dated 09-01-2015, of Cumbum P.S Prakasam District, of Andhra Pradesh, by 2nd respondent here in as illegal, arbitrary, influenced by extraneous considerations prima facie investigated into the alleged offence registered the crime, violative of Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India apart from violative of well settled principles of natural justice, and the police standing orders or executive instruction as per A.P.Police Manual, by invoking the Mandamus direction by way of Quash the crime.
I.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(WPMP. NO: 24073 OF 2017p
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to order stay of all further proceedings against petitioner and B.V.V.Babu Rao, Kaja Kishore in Crime No. 3/2015, dated 09-01-2015, of nd Cumbum P.S, Prakasam District, of Andhra Pradesh, bythe2 respondent here in, pending disposal of the main writ petition. ^
Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI PITCHOONOORI SUNDARAM NAGARAJAN
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2; GP FOR HOME ^ Counsel for the Respondent No.3:—
WRIT PETITION NO: 19718 OF 2017 —
Between:
3
Nagar, Vijayawada-15. Krishna District.
...PETITIONERS
AND
...RESPONDENTSr^
Petition under Article 226''of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction. Quashing or more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents in registering in Crime No.7/2015 of Raja Mahendravaram II Town P.S. Dated 05-01-2015. E.G. District of Andhra Pradesh, by 2"^^ respondent here in as illegal, arbitrary, influenced by extraneous considerations prima fade investigated into the alleged offence registered the crime, violative of Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India apart from violative of well settled principles of natural justice, and the police standing orders or executive instruction as per A.P.Police Manual, by invoking the Mandamus direction by way of Quash the crime.
j.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(WPMP. NO: 24074 OF 2017) -
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to order stay of all further proceedings including arrest of petitioner and B.V.V.Babu Rao, Kaja Kishore in Crime No.7/2015 of Raja Mahendravaram II Town P.S. Dated 05-01-2015, E.G. District of Andhra Pradesh, by the 2"'^ respondent here in, pending disposal of the main writ petition.
Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI PITCHOONOORI SUNDARAIVI
NAGARAJAN
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: GP FOR HOME'
Counsel for the Respondent No.3: —
WRIT PETITION NO: 19721 OF 2017^
Between:
...PETITIONER^
AND
5^
Nandyal I Town P.S. Under the investigation by CID, Regional office Kurnool, Kurnool District,
...RESPONDENTSPetition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated i in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction. Quashing or more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents in registering the Crime No.4/2015 of Nandyal I Town P.S. Kurnool District of Andhra Pradesh by 2 nd respondent here in as illegal, arbitrary, influenced by extraneous considerations , prima facie investigated into the alleged offence registered the crime, violative of Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India apart from violative of well settled principles of natural justice, and the police standing orders or executive instruction as per A.P.Police Manual by invoking the Mandamus direction by way of Quash the crime. ^
LA. NO: 1 OF 2017fWPMP Mn- 24077 OF 2017)-
Petition under Section 151^PC praying that in the circumstances stated ,n the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to order stay of all further proceedings against petitioner and B.V.V Babu Rao, Kaja Kishore in Crime No. 4/2015 of Nandyal I Town P.S. Kurnool District, of Andhra Pradesh, by the 2nd respondent here in, pending disposal of the main writ petition. ^
Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI. PITCHOONOORI SUNDARAM
NAGARAJAN
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No.3;
&
WRIT PETITION NO: 19727 OF 2017
Between:
...PETITIONERS^
AND
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 2^ of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction. Quashing or more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents in registering the Crime No.9/2015, U/s.420 of IPC, U/s 4& 5 r/w 2© of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes(banning) Act 1978, and U/s. 5 of APPDEF Act, dated 06.01.2015, of Ongole I Town P.S., Prakasam District
of Andhra Pradesh, by 2"'' respondent here in as illegal, arbitrary, influenced by extraneous considerations, prima facie investigated into the alleged offence registered the crime, violative of Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India apart from violative of well settled principles of natural justice, and the police standing orders or executive instruction as per A.P.Police Manual, by invoking the Mandamus direction by way of Quash the crime.^
I.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(WPMP. NO: 24084 OF 20171 "
Petition under Section 151 ^PC praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to order stay of all further proceedings against petitioner and B.V.V. Babu Rao, Kaja Kishore in Crime No. 9/2015 U/s.420 of I PC, U/s 4& 5 r/w 2© of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes(banning) Act 1978, and U/s. 5 of APPDEF Act, dated 06.01.2015 of Ongole I Town P.S., Prakasam District, of Andhra Pradesh, by the 2'^'^ respondent here in, pending disposal of the main writ petition. ^
Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI. PITCHOONOORI SUNDARAM
NAGARAJAN
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: GP FOR HOME ^ Counsel for the Respondent No.3:—
WRIT PETITION NO: 19748 OF 2017 Between:
8
...PETITIONERS
AND
...RESPONDENTS-
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction. Quashing or more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents in registering the Crime No. 189/2015 of Kurnool II Town P.S. Kurnool, Dated 06-08-2015. Kurnool District, of Andhra Pradesh by 2"^ respondent here in as illegal, arbitrary, influenced by extraneous considerations prima facie investigated into the alleged offence registered the crime, violative of Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India apart from violative of well settled principles of natural justice, and the police standing orders or executive instruction as per A.P.Police Manual, by invoking the Mandamus direction by way of Quash the crime.
I.A. NO: 2 OF 2017fWPMP. NO: 24114 OF 2017)
"
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to order stay of all further proceedings against petitioner and B.V.V.,
Babu Rao, Kaja Kishore in Crime No. 189/2015 of Kurnool II Town P.S. Kurnool, Dated 06-08-2015, Kurnool District nd of Andhra Pradesh, by the 2 respondent here in, pending disposal of the main writ petition.^
Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI. PITCHOONOORI SUNDARADi/t NAGARAJAN
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No.3:-
The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER
the HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION Nos.19717. IflyiS, ■^Q79^ 19727 and 19748 of 2017
COMMON QRnPR-
The Writ Petition No. 19717 of 2017 IS filed, seeking the
following relief;
“ to issue a Writ, Order or direction one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents ini registering the Crime No 3/2015 U/s 406 120-B,420 of IPC and U/s 5 of APPDEF Act dated 09.01.2015 of Cumbum P S, Prakasam District of Andhra Pradesh by 2"'' respondent herein as illegal, arbitrary, influenced by extraneous considerations prima facie investigated into the alleged offence registered the crii cnme violative of Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India apart from violative of well settled principles of natural justice and the police standing orders or executive instruction as per A.P Police Manual by invoking the Mandamus direction by way of Quash the crime and pass such other orders. ”
The Writ Petition No.19718 of 2017 is fiied, seeking the
following relief;
“ ot issue a Writ, Order or direction one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents ■in■ii registering the Crime No 7/2015 of Rajamahendravaram II Town P.S, E.G. District of Andhra Pradesh, by 2"^ respondent herein as illegal, arbitrary, influenced by extraneous considerations prima facie investigated into the alleged offence registered the crime violative of Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India apart from violative of well settled pnnciples of natural Justice and the police standing orders or executive instruction as per A.P Police Manual by invoking the Mandamus direction by way of Quash the cnme and pass such other orders. ”
The Writ Petition No. 19721 of 2017 is filed, seeking the
following relief;
to issue a Writ, Order or direction one In the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents in registering the Crime No 4/2015 of Nandyal I Town P.S, Kumool District of Andhra Pradesh by 2"“ respondent
2
herein as illegal, arbitrary, influenced by extraneousconsiderationsprimafacie investigated into the alleged offence registered thecrimeviolativeofArticles14 and 21 of Constitution of India apart from violativeofwellsettledprinciplesof natural justice and the police standing orders or executiveinstnictionasperA.P Police Manual by invoking the Mandamus direction bywayofQuashthecrime and pass such other orders. ”
The Writ Petition No.19727 of 2017 is filed, seeking the
following relief;
“ ot issue a Writ, Order or direction one in the natureofWritofMandamus declaring the action of respondents in registeringtheCrimeNo9/2015U/ 420of IPC and U/s 4 and 5 read with 2 {c) of Prize ChitsandMoneyCirculation Schemes (banning) Act, 1978 and U/S 5 of APPDEF Actdated06.01.2015of Ongole I Town P.S, Prakasam District of Andhra Pradeshby2^ respondent herein as illegal, arbitrary, influenced by extraneousconsiderationsprimafacie investigated into the alleged offence registered thecrimeviolativeofArticles14 and 21 of Constitution of India apart from violativeofwellsettledprinciplesof natural justice and the police standing orders or executiveinstructionasperA.P Police Manual by invoking the Mandamus direction bywayofQuashthecrime and pass such other orders. ”
The Writ Petition No.19748 of 2017 is filed, seeking the
following relief;
“ ot issue a Writ, Order or direction one in the natureofWritofMandamus declaring the action of respondents in registeringtheCrimeNo 189/2015 of Kumool II Town P.S, Kumool, dated 06.08.2015, Kumool District of Andhra Pradesh by 2/^ respondent herein as illegal, arbitrary,influencedbyextraneous considerations prima facie investigated into the allegedoffenceregisteredthe crime violative of Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India apart from violative of well settled principles of natural justice and thepolice standing orders or executive instmction as per A.P Police Manual by invoking the Mandamus direction by way of Quash the crime and pass such otherorders.”
I find it expedient to decide these matters by a CommonOrder.
3
/
//TRUE COPY//
Sd/- M.RAMESH BABU DEPUTY,^ registrar
SECTION OFFICER
To,
(Along with a copy of the order in W.P. No.29374 of 2016 and Batch, dated 04.07.2017 to this order)
ssb
HIGH COURT
DATED:07/05/2024
COMMON ORDER
WP.Nos.19717, 19718, 19721, 19727 and 1974^of 2017
DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERBAD
FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA
PRADERSH
Writ Petition Nos.29374 of 2016 and 10185. 11201, 11245, 12943
and 13005 of 2017
Between;
Jakir Hussain Kosangi and others
Petitioners
And:
State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary to Government, Home,
Respondents
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON 04-07-2017
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT
S.V. BHATT
Yes
Yes
Yes
2
VRS, J & SVB, J
W.P.Nos.29374 of 2016 & 10185,
11201, 11245, 12943 & 13005 of 2017
*THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN
AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT
12943 and 13005 of 2017
% 04-07-2017
Jakir Hussain Kosangi and others
Petitioners
And:
State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary to Government, Home,
Respondents
! Counsel for petitioners: Mr. Dhananjay Mr. B. Adinarayana Rao, Sr. Counsel Mr. P.S. Nagarajan
Counsel for respondents:
Advocate General (A.P.)
< Gist:
Head Note:
? Cases referred:
3
VRS, J & SVB, J
W.P.Nos,29374 of 2016 & 10185, 11201, 11245, 12943 & 13005 of 2017
4
VRS, J & SVB, J
W.P.Nos.29374 of 2016 & 10185, 11201, 11245, 12943 & 13005 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE
STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Delivered on: 04-07-2017
Coram:
The Honourable SRI Justice V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN
and
The Honourable SRI Justice S.V. BHATT
Writ Petition Nos.29374 of 2016 and 10185, 11201, 11245. 12943
and 13005 of 2017
W.P.No.29374 of 2016
Between:
... Petitioner
Vs.
5
VRS, J & SVB, J
W.P.Nos.29374 of 2016 & 10185, 11201, 11245, 12943& 13005 of 2017
... Respondents
W.P.No.10185 of 2017
Between:
Avva Venkata Seshu Narayana Rao, S/o Sri A.V. Appa Rao, Hindu, aged 50 years, Occ; Director, R/o D.No.23-35-39, A.S. Rao Street, Lakshminagar, S.N. Puram, Vijayawada, Krishna District
... Petitioner
Vs.
Kovuru, Nellore, Andhra Pradesh.
6
VRS, J & SVB, J
W.P.Nos.29374 of 2016 & 10185,
11201, 11245, 12943 & 13005 of 2017
... Respondents
W.P.No.11201 of 2017
... Respondents
W.P.No.11245 of 2017
Between:
Banoji Rao Moganti, S/o Surya Rao, Hindu, Aged 60 years, employee, resident at D.No.11-2-1/145, Flat No.107, Merridian Seashells, Near Waltair Club, Waltair Upland, Visakhapatnam Urban
... Petitioner
Vs.
7
VRS, J & SVB, J
W,P.Nos.29374 of 2016 & 10185, 11201, 11245, 12943 & 13005 of 2017
.. Respondents
W.P.No.12943 of 2017
Between:
Vs.
... Respondents
W.P.No.13005 of 2017
Between:
Banoji Rao Moganti, S/o Surya Rao, Hindu, Aged 60 years, employee, resident at D.No.11-2-1/145, Flat No.107, Merridian Seashells, Near Waltair Club, Waltair Upland, Visakhapatnam Urban - 530 003.
... Petitioner
8
VRS, J & SVB, J
W.P.Nos.29374 of 2016 & 10185,
11201, 11245, 12943 & 13005 of 2017
... Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioners
Mr. B. Adinarayana Rao, Mr. Dhananjay Mr. P.S. Nagarajan
Counsel for the Respondents
Advocate General (A.P.)
9
VRS, J & SVB, J
W.P.Nos,29374 of 2016 & 10185, 11201, 11245, 12943 & 13005 of 2017
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN
AND
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT
Writ Petition Nos.29374 of 2016 and 10185,11201, 11245, 12943 and 13005 of 2017
Common Order: (per V.Ramasubramanian, J.)
The petitioners in all these writ petitions seek theissueofwrits of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in allowing the registration of multiple FIRs and conducting an investigation into all of them, in relation to the same set of facts, as unconstitutional. They also pray as a consequence, a direction to the respondents to tag all subsequently registered FIRs to the first FIRandalsotoset aside all the Prisoner Transit warrants issued againstthem.
10
VRS, J & SVB, J
W.P,Nos,29374 of 2016 & 10185, 11201, 11245, 12943 & 13005 of 2017
Criminal Procedure and the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 226 of the Constitution, it is sufficient forusto indicate in a tabular column the reliefs sought by the petitioners in these writ petitions.
| W.P.No. | Reliefs sought |
|---|---|
| 29374/2016 | To issue Writ of mandamus declaring the action of respondents in registering different crimes in different stations basing on the same and identical complaints lodged at different point of times before and after registration of FIR No.227/2013 dated 31-12-2013 of 11 Town Police Station, Adoni, Kurnool District against the petitioners/accii.sed lierein on .similar complaints with similar set of fact,s is arbitraiy, illegal and even against to the fundamental principles of criminal justice and direct the respondents to treat all other complaints and investigations therein in subsequent crimes after registration of FIR .No.227/2013 only as statements in FIR No.227/2013 of 11 Tovtn PS. Adoni, Kurnool District, AP and consequentlv tag all the other No.211/2013 of IV Town PS, No. 1.38/2013 of 11 Town PS, Adoni, Kurnool District, AP, FIR No.82/2013 of Dhone PS, Kurnool District. AP, FIR No.299/2013 of Pattabhipurarn PS, Guntur Town, AP, FIR No,61/2013 of 1 Town PS, Tenali, Guntur District, AP, FIR No.62/2013 of 1 Town PS, Tenali, Guntur District. AP, FIR No.63/2013 of [ Town PS, Tenali, Guntur District, AP, FIR No,64/2013 of 1 Town PS. Tenali, Guntur District, AP, FIR No,182/2013 of Chilakaluripeta PS, Guntur District, AP, FIR No,82/20]3 of Peddatumbalam PS, Kurnool District, AP, FIR No. 149/2014 of Koilakuntla PS. Kumool District, AP, FIR No.37/2013 of Koilakuntla PS, Kurnool District, AP and others that were registered in the State of Telangana to FIR No,227/2013 of II Town PS, .Adoni, Kurnool District, AP and also to set aside all the Prisoner Transit Warrants i.ssued against the petitioners/accused in the above crimes and other crimes in the interest of equity and justice. crimes in FIR Kumool, AP, FIR |
| 10185/2017 | To issue Writ of mandamus declaring the action of R.2 to R.8 in conducting investigation into multiple FlRs in relation to same set of facts as illegal, arbiti-ary and violative of Articles 14, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India and the provisions of the .A.P, Protection of the Depositors and Finance Establishment Act, 1999 and consequently direct R. 1 to transfer the crimes i.e., (a) FIR No.378/2014, dt.24-12-2014 of Nellore 111 Towm PS, filed by R.9, (b) FIR No.7/2015, dt.05-01-2015 of Rajahmundrv' 11 Town PS, Rajahmundiy Urban District filed by R.io” (c) FIR No.4/2015, dt.06-01-2015 of Nandyala 1 Town PS. Kumool, filed by R.ll, (d) FIR No.6/2015, dt.06-01-2015 of II Town PS, Madanapalle, Chittoor District filed by R.12, (e) FIR No.31/2015, dt.21- 02-2015 of Chinna Chowk PS, Kadapa District, filed by R.13, (f) FIR No.112/2015, dt.28-4-2015 of Addanki PS. Prakasam District filed by R.14 to the leading FIR No.3/2015 of Pedapadu PS of West Godavari District, in whichtheentirerecords/propertiesofthepetitioners seized |
11
VRS, J & SVB, J
W,P.Nos,29374 of 2016 & 10185,
11201, 11245, 12943 & 13005 of 2017
| and produced before the Special Court constituted under the prortsions of A.P. Protection of Depositors and Finance Establishment Act, 1999 as a single case and treat all other existing FIRs touching the subject matters covered under FIR No.3/2015, as the statements recorded u/S.161 CrPC in the course of the investigation of merged FIRs. |
|
|---|---|
| 11201/2017 | To issue Writ of mandamus declaring the action of respondents in registering the FIR, investigation in Crime No,3/2015 u/Secs.l20B and 420 IPC, Sec,45 of RBI Act and Sec.3 r/w Sec.4 of PCMCS Act, and Sec.5 of APPDEFF Act, and investigating by R.2 as illegal, arbitrary, influenced by extraneous considerations, prima facie investigated into the alleged offence registered the crime, and are violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India apart from violative of well-settled principles of natural justice. |
| 11245/2017 | To issue Writ of mandamus, declaring the action of I'espondents in registering the FIR and investigation in Crime ^0.3/2015 of Peday«idu PS of West Godavari District, .AP, u/Sec.s,120B and 420 IPC, Sec.45 of RBI Act, and Sec.3 r/w Sec.4 of PCMCS Act. and Sec.5 of APPDEFF Act, oil 02-01-2015. as illegal, aibitraiy, influenced by extraneou.s considerations, prima facie investigated into the alleged offence registered the crime, violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India apai t from violative of well-settled principles of natural justice, quash tlie same. |
| 12943/2017 | To issue W'rit of mandamus, declciring the action of respondents in registering the crime by FIR, and investigation in Crime No.31/2015 of Chinna Chouk PS, dt.21-02-2015 of Kadapa. Kadapa District of AP and investigating by R.2 as illegal, arbitrarv-. influenced by e.xtraneous considerations, prima facie investigated into the aUeged offence registered the crime, and are violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India apart from violative of well-settled principles of natural justice. |
| 13005/2017 | to issue Writ of mandamus, declaring the action of respondents in registering the FIR and investigation in Crime No.31/2015 of Cliina Chouk U/G Kadapa PS, Kadapa District of AP. u/Secs.42(), 508 and 197 IPC, u/S.156(3) of CrPC, and Sec.D of APPDEFF Act, on 21-02- 2015, now under the investigation is with CBCID Regional Office, Thirupathi, R.2 herein as illegal, arbitrary', influenced by extraneous considerations, prima facie investigated into the alleged offence registered the crime, vnolative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India apart from violative of well-settled principles of natural justice,quashthesame. |
12
VRS, J & SVB, J
W.P.Nos.29374 of 2016 & 10185, 11201, 11245, 12943 & 13005 of 2017
Directors or sons of the Nominated Directors, As a consequence, Prisoner Transit warrants are issued by various courts making the petitioners run around, without any redemption, seriously infringing their fundamental rights.
Arguments of the Counsel for the petitioners
13
VRS, J & SVB, J
W.P.Nos,29374 of 2016 & 10185, 11201. 11245, 12943 & 13005 of 2017
Other than the first informant should be recorded onlyunderSection 162 of the Code.
The evolution of the Law
(1979) 2 see 322
14
VRS, J & SVB, J
W.P.Nos.29374 of 2016 & 10185, 11201. 11245, 12943 & 13005 of 2017
subject matter of the first case, may be part of the conspiracy forming the subject matter of the second case. 9. in the next case reported in M. Krishna v. State of Karnataka^, what was under challenge before the SupremeCourt was a second prosecution for the offences under Section 13(1) (e) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against a Class-1 Officer of the Karnataka Administrative Services on the ground that he amassed wealth disproportionate to his known sources of income. While the check period in respectofthefirstFIR was 01.08.1978 to 24.08.1989, the check period relating to the second prosecution was from 01.08.1978 to 25.07.1995. While rejecting the contention that the second prosecution was unlawful, the Supreme Court observed in the last paragraph of the judgment that there is no provision in the Code which debars the filing of a second FIR and an investigation into the alleged offences merely because for an earlier period there was a First Information Report which was duly investigated and culminated in the conclusionofthe proceedings. The Court pointed out that the mere overlappingofthe periods cannot be a ground for invalidating the secondFIR.
^ (2000) 9 see 449
15
VRS, J & SVB, J
W.P.Nos.29374 of 2016 & 10185, 11201, 11245, 12943 & 13005 of 2017
authorities were unable to release him despite his securing bail from all Courts. The reliefs sought in the Writ PetitionunderArticle32 were (1) to transfer all FIRs and all cases in relation thereto pending before different Courts to one particular Court and (2) to consolidate all those cases and have them investigated, inquired into and tried together.
16
VRS, J & SVB, J
W.P,Nos.29374 of 2016 & 10185, 11201, 11245, 12943 & 13005 of 2017
Bench of the Kerala High Court, in and by which the High Court directed a fresh investigation into the complaintsthatarose out of two incidents that took place at two different placesonthesame day, but with respect to the same cause, in the course of demonstrations held by a political party against a Minister of the State, conducted at two different places within the same city, a few people died in police firing and more than hundred people suffered injuries. Two separate FIRs were registered on the same day in the police stations within whose jurisdiction the offences were committed. But subsequently, a commission of inquiry appointed by the State Government submitted a report indicting the police officers and the Minister. The recommendations of the commission of enquiry were accepted by the Government and a freshFIRwas registered against the Minister, Deputy SuperintendentofPoliceand Executive Magistrate. On an interim report, 19 policeofficersand14 constables were also implicated in the fresh FIR.
17
VRS, J & SVB, J
W.P.Nos.29374 of 2016 & 10185, 11201. 11245, 12943 & 13005 of 2017
Court. One of the issues that arose for consideration before the Supreme Court was as to whether the registration of a fresh case, pursuant to the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry, which is in the nature of a second FIR was valid in terms of Section 154 of the Code and could form the basis of a fresh investigation. This question, as framed in para 15(i) of the report in T. T. Antony {2001 (6) see 181} flowed out of the statement of fact in para 14 of the report that the FIR registered pursuant to therecommendationof the Commission of Inquiry was registered after three years of occurrence, when two FIRs in that regard were already pending investigation. Interestingly the Supreme Court referred to the FIR registered pursuant to the recommendation of the Commissionof Inquiry as a second FIR, throughout the judgment, despitethefact that two FIRs had already been registered in two different police stations on the very date of occurrence. Another interesting aspect is that the Supreme Court was not concernedwiththe question as to whether two different FIRs registeredin two different police stations on the date of occurrencewerevalidor not. This is why the Supreme Court quashed only that FIR (actually the third in chronology but referred to as the second throughout the judgment of the Supreme Court) that was registered pursuant to the recommendation of the Commission of Inquiry.
18
VRS, J & SVB, J
W,P,Nos.29374 of 2016 & 10185, 11201, 11245, 12943 & 13005 of 2017
of Criminal Procedure and held in para-20 of the reportthat the earliest or the first information satisfies the requirementsofSection 154 and that therefore there can be no second FIR. As a consequence, the Supreme Court held that there canbenofresh investigation on receipt of every subsequent information in respect of the very same cognizable offence or the same occurrence or incident giving rise to one or more cognizable offences. The reason as to why the Supreme Court cametothe said conclusion in para-20 of the report was that the officer-in-charge of police station, who has entrusted with the duty to investigate a cognizable offence, has a duty not merely to investigate the cognizable offence reported in the FIR but also to investigate other connected offences found to have been committed “in the course of the same transaction or the same occurrence”.
19
VRS, J & SVB, J
W.P.Nos.29374 of 2016 & 10185, 11201, 11245, 12943 & 13005 of 2017
FIRs, is in truth and substance the same, the registeringofthe second FIR and making fresh investigation and forwarding report under Section 173 Cr.P.C will be irregular"’.
“A just balance between the fundamental irghts of thecitizensunderArticles 19 and 21 of the Constitution and the expansive power of the police to investigate a cognizable offence has to be struck bythecourt.Ttierecannot be any controversy that sub-section (8) of Section 173 Cr.P.C. empowers the police to make further investigation, obtain further evidence (both oral and documentary) and forward a further report or reports to the Magistrate. In Narang case it was, however, observed that it would be appropriate to conduct further investigation with the permission ofthecourt.However,the sweeping power of investigation .v/ith the permission of the court. However, the sweeping power of investigation does not warrant subjecting a citizen eact! time to fresh investigation by the police in respect of the same incident, giving rise to one or more cognizable offences, consequent upon filing of successive FIRs whether before or after filing the final report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. It would clearly be beyond the purviewofSections154and 156 Cr.P.C., nay, a case of abuse of the statutory power of investigation in a given case. In our view a case of fresh investigationbasedonthesecondor successive FIRs, not being a counter-case, filed inconnectionwiththesame or connected cognizable offence alleged to have beencommitted in the course of the same transaction and in respect of which pursuant to the first FIR either investigation is under way or final report under Section 173(2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate, may be a fit case for exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution.'
20
VRS, J & SVB, J
W.P.Nos.29374 of 2016 & 10185, 11201, 11245, 12943 & 13005 of 2017
whenever the second or subsequent information related to “the same cognizable offence or the same occurrence or same incident giving rise to one or more cognizable offences”.The emphasis laid by the Supreme Court was on the samenessofthe truth and substance of the gravamen of the charges.
19, As we have pointed out earlier, an important aspecttobe noted in the decision of the Supreme Court in T.T. Antony is that the Supreme Court did not quash the two FIRs in Crime Nos.353and 354 of 1994 registered at two different places on the very date of the occurrence, but quashed only the FIR filed after 3 years pursuant to the recommendation of the commission of inquiry. Therefore, it follows that the reasoning adopted by the Supreme Courtwasnot applied to the second FIR filed on the same date.
20, In Narinderjit Singh Sahni v. Union of lndia^\ a 3- member Bench of the Supreme Court was concerned withabatchof writ petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India seeking bail in the nature as prescribed under Section438 of the Code. The petitioners in Narinderjit Singh Sahni were inspired by the earlier orders passed by the Supreme Court, one inV.K.Sharma v. Union of India (2000) 9 SCC 449 and another in P.K.Sharmadated 05-5-2000. Actually the petitioners in Narinderjit Singh Sahni sought the very same reliefs as granted to the petitioners in V.K. Sharma which was followed in another case P.K. Sharma vs. Union of India, but a Two Member bench of the Supreme Court found itdifficultto
® (2002) 2 see 210
21
VRS, J & SVB, J
W.P.Nos.29374 of 2016 & 10185, 11201. 11245, 12943 & 13005 of 2017
accept the orders passed in V.K. Sharma and P.K. Sharma. Therefore, the Two Member bench referred the petitions in Narinderjit Singh Sahni to a larger bench. The main thrust of the argument before the 3-member bench in Narinderjit SinghSahniwas that the chase given to the very same accused by different police for the same set of offences was an infraction of Article 21. It is relevant to note at this stage that the petitioners before the Supreme Court in Narinderjit Singh Sahni included the Chairman and Managing Director of a group of companies (about 40 companies) having 50 branches all over the country, which accepted depositsfrom the public. When the companies failed to repay the depositsandthe cheques issued by them bounced, criminal proceedingscametobe initiated at various places including Delhi, Mumbai, Pune, Chandigarh, Udaipur, Gurhgam, Ghaziabad, Ludhiana, Dehradun and Ambala.
22
VRS, J & SVB, J
W.P.Nos.29374 of 2016 & 10185, 11201, 11245, 12943& 13005 of 2017
Section 420 read with Section 120B of the PC, therecannotbe several cases jeopardising the fundamental rights oftheaccused. 22, Dealing with the alleged infraction of Article 21, the Supreme Court opined in para-54 of its judgment that a deprivation of personal liberty in accordance with the procedure established by law would not amount to an infractionofArticle 21. In para-61 of the judgment, the Supreme Court pointedout in Narinderjit Singh Sahni “that the proposition thatanaccused being involved in a large number of criminal casesindifferent parts of the country, if not able to be released from custody even on getting bail orders in some cases would tantamountto a violation of the right under Article 21 cannot be accepted”. 23. The Supreme Court went on to point out in para-61 that it would be a misplaced sympathy of the Courtonwhite- collared accused persons whose acts of commission and omission had ruined a vast majority of poor citizens of the country. After pointing this out, the Supreme Courtrecorded its disapproval of the orders passed in V.K, Sharma andP.K,Sharma.
VRS, J & SVB, J
23
W.P.Nos.29374 of 2016 & 10185, 11201, 11245, 12943 & 13005 of 2017
transactions and we do not see any compelling reason to hold it otherwise”.
of a lady lodged a FIR claiming that a few personsfrom outside sneaked into the bedroom of her daughter-in-law andmurderedher. In the course of investigation into the FIR so lodged, the police found that it was the mother-in-law and her other daughters-in-law,who had conspired to kill the victim. Therefore after sendingaclosure report in respect of the FIR lodged by the mother-in-law, the police registered a second FIR against the mother-in-law andothers.The validity of the second FIR was challenged and when the matter landed up before the Supreme Court, the Supreme Courtobserved as a general proposition that there cannot be two FIRs against the same accused in respect of the same case. But the Court nevertheless pointed out in paragraph-11 of the judgmentthatwhen there are rival versions in respect of the same episode, they would normally take the shape of two different FIRs and investigationcan be carried on under both of them by the same agency.
bench of the Supreme Court was confronted with yetanothercase
'(2002) 1 see 714 *(2002) 8 see 158
24 VRS, J & SVB, J
W.P,Nos,29374 of 2016 & 10185, 11201, 11245, 12943 & 13005 of 2017
of similar nature. In that case, a company by nameGolden Forest (India) Limited and its Directors faced prosecutionindifferentCourts for offences under Sections 406, 420, 468, 471 and 120B of the IPC read with Section 7(2) of the Punjab Reforms Act, 1972, on the allegation that the company collected deposits fromthousands of members of the public promising to repay the same,butfailed to repay on the maturity date. The Director of the Company filed 2 petitions under Section 482 of the Code before the High Court, praying under one for the dropping of the charges and praying in another for the trial of all cases in one Court. The High Court followed the order passed by the Supreme Court in V.K.Sharmaand transferred all cases pending in different Courts in the State of Punjab to the Court of a Special Judicial Magistrate. It was this order of the High Court that was challenged by the State of Punjab before the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Rajesh Syal. While pointing out that the orders passed in V.K. Sharma were not to be treated as a precedent, even as per its own terms, the SupremeCourtheld in para-7 as follows:
“In the present case, different people have alleged to have been defrauded by the respondent and the company and thereforeeach offence is of distinct one and cannot be regarded as constituting a single series of facts/ transaction”.
25
VRS, J & SVB, J
W,P.Nos.29374 of 2016 a 10185. 11201, 11245, 12943 a 13005 of 2017
justice. It must be pointed out at this stage thatthedecisionofthe Two Member Bench of the Supreme Court in T.T. Antonywas not brought to the notice of the Supreme Court either in Narinderjit Singh Sahni or in State of Punjab v. Rajesh Syal.
®(2004) 13 see 292 10■ (2006) (1) see 732
26
VRS, J & SVB, J
W.P'.Nos.29374 of 2016 & 10185, 11201, 11245, 12943 & 13005 of 2017
I.P.C. But within a few days, the High Court of Gujarat passed an order in a Public Interest Litigation directing theCBI to conduct an investigation into the deeds and misdeeds of the verysamesetof officers. Therefore, the CBI registered another FIRwithinamonthof the registration of the first FIR by the local police.LatertheCBIalso took over the investigation into the first complaint.
VRS, J & SVB, J
27
W.P.Nos.29374 of 2016 & 10185, 11201, 11245, 12943 & 13005 of 2017
not in respect of the same cognizable offence or the same occurrence giving rise to one or more cognizable offencesnorwere they alleged to have been committed in the course ofthesame transaction or the same occurrence. 32, In Vikram v. State of Maharashtra", one FIR cametobe registered on the basis of an oral message received on telephone and the second FIR was registered after receipt of grater details. The trial Court convicted a group of persons and the High Court upheld the same. When the matter landed up in SupremeCourt, it was argued that the second FIR was unlawful. But the said contention was rejected by the Supreme Court by pointingoutthata cryptic and anonymous oral message, which did not in terms clearly specify the commission of a cognizable offence, cannot'betreated as First Information Report. In other words the argument relating to the validity of the second FIR was rejected on the reasoning that there was virtually one clear FIR and the other was cryptic and vague.
11 (2007) 12 see 332
12 (2008) 9 sec 685
28
VRS, J & SVB, J
W.P.Nos.29374 of 2016 & 10185, 11201, 11245, 12943 & 13005 of 2017
of the petitioner in all the cases as well as the speedy disposal of all cases. The grievance of the petitioner in Pramod Kumar Saxena was that he was implicated as an accused in as many as48cases in 6 different States for alleged offences under Sections 406, 409 and 420 read with Section 120B of IPC and also under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and that, therefore,he is not able to come out of the jail despite securing bail.
34, Though the Supreme Court held in Pramod Kumar Saxena that the petitioner deserved some relief, the Court categorically ruled in para-34 of its judgment as follows;
“So far as consolidation of cases and triai of all the cases in one Court is concerned, as observed hereinabove, such relief cannot be granted. V.K. Sharma, wherein such relief was granted, has been expressly overruled by Rajesh Syai”.
35, It is to be noted that even in Pramod Kumar Saxena,the Supreme Court did not take note of T. T. Antony, buttooknoteofthe order passed in V.K. Sharma and the decisions in State of Punjab v. Rajesh Sya/and Narinderjit Singh Sahni v. Union ofIndia.
29
VRS, J & SVB, J
W.P.Nos.29374 of 2016 & 10185, 11201, 11245, 12943 & 13005 of 2017
the CBI was on a wider canvass and that it was lodged after holding a detailed preliminary enquiry. Pointing out the distinction between an offence committed by an individual or twoandan offence disclosed in a scandal involving a large number of officers, the Supreme Court cited with the approval, the decision in Ram Lai Narang. In Nirmal Singh, the SupremeCourt took note of the distinction made in T. T. Antony tothedecision in Ram Lai Narang and thereafter held in paragraph 50ofitsdecision as follows;
“We must also bear in mind the distinction between crime committed by an individual or a group of persons vis-a'-vis a scam whicti means "to get money or property from, another, under false pretences, by gaining the confidence of the victim, also includes; swindle; defraud".
14 (2010)9 see 567
30
VRS, J & SVB, J
W.P.Nos.29374 of 2016 & 10185, 11201, 11245, 12943 & 13005 of 2017
accused that consolidation was illegal, the SupremeCourtinvoked the ratio decidendi in T. T. Antony.
“In such a case the court has to examine the facts and circumstances giving rise to both the FIRs and thetestof sameness is to be applied to find out whether both the FIRs relate to the same incident in respect of the same occurrence or are in regard to the incidents which are two or more parts of die same transaction. If the answer is affirmative, the second FIR is liable to be quashed. However, in case, the contrary is proved, where the version in the second FIR is different and they are in respect of the two differentincidents/crimes,the second FIR is permissible. In case in respect of thesameincidentthe accused in the first FIR comes forward with a different version or counter claim, investigation on both the FiRs has to be conducted."
15 (2010) 12 see 254
16 (2010) 14 see 444
31
VRS, J & SVB, J
W.P.Nos.29374 of 2016 & 10185, 11201, 11245, 12943& 13005 of 2017
Supreme Court. On a further appeal, to the Supreme Court, the validity of the second FIR was questioned on the basis of 7.7. Antony. While rejecting the said contention, the Supreme court observed in paragraph-14 of the decision in China Shivrajthatthere cannot be a second FIR in respect of the same offence/event because whenever any further information is received by the investigating agency, it is always in furtherance of the First Information Report. But since in China Shivraj, the first FIR was registered on the basis of the information provided by the victim herself and the second FIR (though unnecessary) was registered after her death, the Supreme court pointed out that no prejudice was caused to the accused.
17 (2012) 1 see 130
32
VRS, J & SVB, J
W.P,Nos,29374 of 2016 & 10185, 11201, 11245; 12943& 13005 of 2017
of the same incident. But the Supreme Court held in paragraph-6 its decision that the law does not prohibit registration and investigation of two FIRs in respect of the same incidentincase the versions are different and that the test of sameness has to be applied.
follows:
Court reiterated the principle laid down in 77 Antonythatasecond FIR in respect of an offence or different offencescommitted in the course of the same transaction is not only impermissible but it violates Article 21 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court also 18 (2013) 5 see 148 19 (2013) 6 see 348
33
VRS, J & SVB, J
W,P.Nos.29374 of 2016 & 10185, 11201, 11245, 12943 & 13005 of 2017
pointed out that the subsequent decisions in Upkar Singh, Babubai, China Shivraj and C. Muniappan, reaffirmed the principlelaiddown in TT Antony. After referring the ratio laid down in TT Antony, the Supreme Court took up for consideration the second question as to what would constitute “the same transaction^^ The Supreme Court, in Amitbhai, quoted with approval a passage from the decision of the Privy Council in Babulal v. Emperor (AIR 1938 PC 130) to the effect that if several persons conspire to commit offences, and commit overt acts in pursuance of the conspiracy (a circumstance which makes the act of one, the act ofeachandallthe conspirators), these acts are committed in the courseofthesame transaction, which embraces the conspiracy and the acts done under it. The common concert and agreement which constitutethe conspiracy, serve to unify the acts done in pursuanceofit. 43. In Anju Chaudhary v. State of U.P.20, the vexed question as to whether a second FIR is permissible,aroseoutofthe breaking out of the communal violence in Gorakhpuron27,01.2007. A criminal complaint was registered and a charge sheetwasalso filed later. But after 10 months, a private complaintcame to be lodged by an individual before the Chief Judicial Magistrate alleging that those who instigated the communal violence on 27.01.2007 conducted a public meeting and made hate speeches spreadingfear amongst the members of a particular community. The Magistrate refused to refer the complaint under Section 156 (3) of the Code, on the ground that a FIR had already been registered intotheincidence 20 (2013) 6 see 384
34
VRS, J & SVB, J
W,P.Nos.29374 of 2016 & 10185, 11201, 11245, 12943 & 13005 of 2017
that followed the meeting. The complainant took themattertothe High Court by way of a revision, and the High Courtremandedthe matter to the Magistrate to reconsider the matter. The order of remand passed by the High Court was challenged by way of Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court. One of the grounds raised before the Supreme Court was that there cannot be two FIRs registered in relation to the same occurrence or differenteventsor incidents two or more but forming part of the sametransactions. While dealing with the said issue, the Supreme Court pointed out in paragraph-15 that it is a settled principle that therecannotbetwo FIRs registered for the same offence. But the SupremeCourtadded
a note of caution as follows:
“However, where the Incident Is separate; offencesaresimilaror different, or even where the subsequent crime is of such magnitude that it does not fall within the ambit and scope oftheFiRrecorded first, then a second FIR could be registered"
35
VRS, J & SVB, J
W.P.Nos,29374 of 2016 & 10185, 11201, 11245, 12943 & 13005 of 2017
Vikram and Shiv Shankar Singh, the Supreme Court observed
in
paragraph-23 of its decision in Anju Chaudhury as follows:
“The Court in order to examine the impact of one ormoreFiRshas to rationaiise the facts and circumstances of each case and then apply the test of sameness’ to find out whether both FiRs relate to the same incident and to the same occurrence, or in regard toincidentswhichare two or more parts of the same transaction or relate completely to two distinct occurrences. If the answer falls in the first category, the second FiR may be liable to be quashed".
36
VRS, J & SVB, J
W.P,Nos,29374 of 2016 & 10185. 11201, 11245, 12943 & 13005 of 2017
principal and subsidiary, so as to result in one continuous action. The Court went on to state that where there is commonality or purpose or design, where there is continuityof action, then all those persons involved can be accusedofthe same or different offences committed in the course of the same transaction.
Supreme Court reiterated the principles enunciated in Anju Chaudhary and held that a second FIR about the sameoccurrence between the same persons and with similarity of scope of investigation cannot be registered and by applying the test of similarity it may be hit by the proviso to Section162oftheCode. Analysis of the decisions of the Supreme Court: 49. Our research has taken us to the above 21 decisions of the Supreme Court where this vexed question came up for consideration again and again. The summary that we have given above under the caption “Evolution of the Law”, can also be given in a capsule in the form of a tabular column so that thedistinctionthat the Supreme Court drew between different types/categoriesofcase could be easily appreciated.
| S.NO | Decision | The dispute arose out of |
whether the Second (2"“) FIR or Multiple FIRs filed are Valid or Invalid |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | Ram Lai Narang Vs. StatefDelhi Administration) and Om Prakash Narang & State(Delhi Administration), (1979) 2 Ors Vs. |
Arose out of theft of two sandstone pillars of great antiquity. |
Valid |
21 (2013) (6) see 428
37
VRS, J & SVB, J
W.P.Nos.29374 of 2016 & 10185,
11201, 11245, 12943& 13005 of 2017
| see 322 |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| 2. | M. Krishna Vs. State of Karnataka, (1999) 3 See 247 |
Arose out of amassing wealth disproportionate to one's source of income. |
Valid |
| 3. | V.K. Sharma Vs. Union of India, (2000)9See449 |
Arose out of swindling a large number of depositors on the false pretext that their deposits would be returned with interest on a subsequent date. (White-eollar erime) |
Valid (Multiple FIRs) |
| 4. | Mohan Bhaitha Vs. State of Bihar, (2001)4SCC350 |
Arose out of a dowry death. Note: - The question involved here is not about whether there can be more FIRs than one but whether there can be more trials than one. concerned |
Held: -Offences more than one committed by the same persons could be tried at one trial, if they can be held to be in one series of facts so as to form the same transaction. |
| 5. | T.T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC 350 |
Arose out of police firing resulting into deaths of few people and injuries to a large number of people. |
ra Third (3™) FIR Invalid, |
| 6. | Narinderjit Singh Shani and another Vs, Union of India, (2002)2SCC210 |
Arose out of swindling of a large number of depositors on the false pretext that their deposits would be returned with interest on a subsequent date. |
Valid (Multiple FIRs) |
| 7. | Kari Chaudhary Vs, Most. Sita Devi and Ors, (2002) 1 SCC 714 |
Arose out of a murder case. |
Valid |
| 8. | State of Punjab Vs. Rajesh Syal,(2002)8SCC158 |
Arose out of swindling of a large number of depositors on the false pretext that their deposits would be returned with interest on a subsequent date. (White-CollarCrime) |
Valid (Multiple FIRs) |
| 9. | Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash, (2004) 13SCC 292 |
Arose out of an attempt to murder and house- trespasscases |
Valid |
| 10. | RameshchandraNandlal Parikh v. State of Gujarat (2006) 1 SCC 732 |
Arose out of swindling of a large number of depositors on the false pretext that their deposits would be returned with interest |
Valid (Multiple FIRs) |
38
VRS, J & SVB, J
W.P.Nos.29374 of 2016 & 10185,
11201, 11245,12943& 13005 of 2017
| 11. | Vikram Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 12 see 332 |
on a subsequent date. Arose out of a murder case. |
Valid |
|---|---|---|---|
| 12. | Pramod Kumar Saxena Vs. Union of India and Ors, (2008)9SCC685 |
Arose out of swindling of a large number of depositors on the false pretext that their deposits would be returned with interest on a subsequent date. |
Valid (Multiple FIRs) |
| 13. | Nirmai Singh Kahlon Vs. State of Punjab and Others, (2009) 1 see 441 |
Arose out of scandal involving selection of Panchayat Secretaries. |
Valid |
| 14. | e. Muniappan and others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2010) 9 sec 567 |
Arose out of setting fire to a university bus and several public buses. |
Investigation of the Second FIR was clubbed with the investigation of the First FIR. In two essence, complaints/FIRs |
| clubbed are |
|||
| together investigated jointly. and |
|||
| 15. | Bahubhai Vs! State of j Gujarat, (2010) 12 SCO 254 I j |
Arose out of altWcation that took place between members of the two communities. |
Invalid |
| 16. | ChirraShivraj Vs, Sate of AP, (2010) 14 sec 444 |
Arose out of an attempt to murder case. |
Second F.I.R. held Valid because SHO made a mistake by recording information as a fresh that this mistake should not make and F.I.R. the of case prosecution weak especially when no prejudice had been |
| caused. | |||
| 17. | Shiv Shankar Singh Vs. State of Bihar, (2012) 1 SCO 130 |
Arose out of dacoity and murder. |
Valid |
| 18. | Surender Kaushik and Others Vs. State of UP, (2013) 5 sec 148 |
Arose out of fake and fraudulent documents prepared by the accused persons. |
Invalid |
| 19. | AmitbhaiAnilchandra Shah Vs.CBI,(2013)6sec348 |
Arose out of murder cases |
Invalid |
| 20. | Anju Chowdry Vs. State of UP, (2013) 6 sec 384 |
Arose out of a hate speech. |
Valid |
| 21. | YanabSheikh(3)gagu Vs. state of West Bengal, (2013)6sec428 |
Arose out of a murder case. |
Invalid |
39
VRS, J & SVB, J
W.P,Nos.29374 of 2016 & 10185, 11201, 11245, 12943 & 13005 of 2017
Conclusion to be drawn:
50, From the above table, it could be seen that the cases in which the validity of multiple FIRs was raised, fellatleaseintosix categories, such as - (1) murder/attempt to murder; (2) mob violence leading to destruction of property, murder and/or encounter; (3) theft/dacoity; (4) abuse of official position, adoption of corrupt practices and amassing of wealth; (5) hate speech; and (6) companies receiving deposits from innumerable personsandthere after defaulting in repayment. Out of the 21 cases listed above, 5 cases alone relate to non-repayment of deposit money by finance companies. In all these five cases where innumerable complaints were lodged by depositors, the Supreme Court did notchoose to interfere. Therefore, the decision of the Supreme Court in TT Antony on which heavy reliance is placed by the counsel for the petitioners cannot go to the rescue of the petitioners.
40
VRS, J & SVB, J
W.P.Nos.29374 of 2016 & 10185, 11201, 11245, 12943 & 13005 of 2017
to repay, the ratio decidendi in (i) Narinderjit Singh Sahni, (ii) Rajesh Syal and (iii) Pramod Kumar Saxena alone would applyandnotthe ratio in 7.7. Antony.
Two High Court Decisions
41
VRS, J & SVB, J
W,P.Nos.29374 of 2016 & 10185, 11201, 11245, 12943 & 13005 of 2017
Pandey^^ and another of the Supreme Court in S. Khushbu v. KanniammaP^. While the case before the Delhi High Courtrelated to a famous painter against whom several criminal complaintscame to be registered on the ground that his paintings denigrated Hindu Gods, the case in S. Khushbu related to a speech made by an actor which was taken exception to by chauvinists in several parts of the State of Tamil Nadu leading to the registration of multiple FIRs.
55, The decision in Akbaruddin Owaisi arose out of a single cause of action, if we may borrow the said expression from the Civil Law. A single speech propagated or publishedortelevised or publicised in different places cannot result in the prosecution of the individual in different Courts since the transmission of a single message cannot tantamount to different acts of crime.Wemustalso point out at this stage that while the learned Judge,inhisdecisionin Akbaruddin Owaisi, took note of T.T. Antony, S. KhushbuandM.F. Hussein, he did not take note of the decisions of the Supreme Court in Narinderjit Singh Sahni, Rajesh Syal and PramodKumarSaxena. Therefore, we do not think that the decision rendered in a case relating to a single act of crime committed by an individual, which. when propagated or publicised, is taken advantage of by several individuals to witch-hunt the person, cannot applytoacasewhere innumerable persons are alleged to have been cheatedatdifferent places at different points of time. To say that theoffencescommitted against all those persons are punishable under the very same
23 2008 Cri.L.J. 4107
24 (2010) 5 see 600
42
VRS, J & SVB, J
W.P.Nos.29374 of 2016 & 10185, 11201, 11245, 12943 & 13005 of 2017
provisions and that therefore there cannot be multipleFIRswouldbe equivalent to saying that a person committing a seriesofthefts in several places cannot be made to face separate prosecutions in respect of each act of theft committed against differentindividualsat different points of time.
“The declaration of law, in T.T. Antony, has not been diluted in any subsequent judgments of the Supreme Court even though exceptions have been carved out. (Amitbhai Anil Chandra Shah). The rule, that any further complaint against the same accused for the same incident, subsequent to the registration of a case is prohibited under the Cr.P.C, will not apply;-
(i). in case the FIRs are not in respect of the same cognizable offence or the same occurrence giving rise to one or more cognizableoffencesnor are they alleged to have been committed in the courseof the same transaction or the same occurrence as the one alleged in the first FIR. (Rameshchandra Nandlal Parikh v. State of Gujarat 2006 (3) SCJ 242 - (2006) 1 see 732).
(ii). where the incident is separate and the offences are similar or different, or where the subsequent crime is of such magnitude that it does not fall within the ambit and scope of the FIR recorded first. (Anju ehaudhary v. State of Uttar Pradesh: 2013 (5) SCJ 825 = (2013) Cri.L.J. 776 (SC),
43
VRS, J & SVB, J
W.P.Nos.29374 of 2016 & 10185, 11201, 11245, 12943& 13005 of 2017
(iii). Where several distinct offences/incidents have been reported. In such a case the investigating agency should issue separateFIRsunder Section 154(1) Cr.P.C, {M/s. Jagathi Publications Ltd. Rep. by Y. Eshwara Prasad Reddy v. Central Bureau of Investigation: 2012 (2) ALT (CrI) 285 (A,P,) = 2012 (2) ALD (Cri) 762). (iv). to cryptic, anonymous or oral messages which do not clearly specify a cognizable offence and cannot be treated as an FIR. No exception can be taken if. upon receipt of proper information, anotherdetailed FIR is recorded, and the detailed FIR is treated as the FIR. (Tapinder Singh v. State of Punjab (1970) 2 SCC 113; Vikram v. State of Maharashtra 2008 (1) ALT (cri.) 179 (SC) = 2008 (1) SCJ 227 = (2007) 12 SCC 332).
(v). Where, for an earlier period, there was an FtR which was duly investigated into and culminated in a final report which was accepted by a Competent Court. {M. Krishna v. State of Karnataka ((1999) 3 SCC 247: AIR 1999 SC 1765). (vi). Where the earlier complaint was decided on insufficientmaterial or was passed without understanding the nature of the complaint, or where complete facts could not be placed before the court and the applicant came to know of certain facts after the disposal of the first complaint. In such cases the test of full consideration of the complaintsonmeritsmust be applied. {Shiv Shankar Singh v. State of Bihar 2012 (1) ALT (cri.) 383 (SC) = 2012 (2) SCJ 291 = (2012) 1 SCC 130),
(vii), in cases where there are different versions, they are in respect of two different incidents/crimes, and when new discovery is made on factual foundations. Discoveries may be made by the police authorities at a subsequent stage and can also surface in another proceeding. {Nirmal Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab: (2009) 1 SCC 441:Babubhaiv.Stateof Gujarat: (2010) 12 SCC 254),
(viii). even in cases where the first complaint is registered and investigation initiated, it is possible to file a further complaint based on the material gathered during the course of investigation, {Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash ((2004) 13 SCC 292 = AIR 2004 SC 4320 = 2005 (1) ALT 2.2 (DN SC); Ram LaiNarang v. State (Delhi Administration) (1979 CriLJ 1346): (1979) 2 SCC 322). (ix). Where two FIRs are lodged in respect of the same incident having materially different allegations of commission of different cognizable offences. (T.T Antony v. State of Kerala (2001 CriLJ 3329 (2001) 6 SCC 181: Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash ((2004) 13 SCC292 AIR 2004 SC 4320) = 2005 (1) ALT 2.2 (DN SC).
(x). to a counter claim by the accused in the first complaint, or on his behalf, alleging a different version of the said incident. In case there are rival versions in respect of the same episode, it wouldbetreatedastwo different FIRs and investigation can be carried under both of them by the same investigating agency. (Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash (2004) 13 SCC 292; Kari Choudhary v. Most.Sita Devi: 2002 (1) ALT (Cri.) 198 (SC) = (2002) 1 SCC 714 AIR 2002 SC 441); Ashok Kumar Tiwariv. State of U.P (2008 CriLJ 4668 (Allahabad High Court)),
(xi). where the FIRs are regarding independent and distinct offences, registration of a subsequent FIR cannot be prohibited on the ground that some other FIR had been filed against the petitioner in respect of other allegations made against him. {Rameshchandra NandlalParikh v. State of Gujarat, (2006) 1 SCC 732).
(xii). in cases where the same group of people commitoffences in a similar manner in different localities falling under different jurisdictions. Even if these incidents are committed in close proximityoftime,there can be separate FIRs. {Anju Chaudhary v. State of UttarPradesh:2013 (5) SCJ 825 = (2013) Cri.L.J. 776).
44
VRS, J & SVB, J
W.P,N6s.29374 of 2016 & 10185, 11201, 11245, 12943 & 13005 of 2017
58, It may be of interest to note that in AkbaruddinOwaisia forceful argument was made against the prohibitionofasecondFIR on the ground that if the information provided by the de facto complainants in the second or subsequent FIRs are treated only as a statements under Section 162 of the Code, it may be possible for the State to withdraw the prosecution without the knowledge or objection from the victim, leaving the victim in the lurch. But, the said argument was rejected by the learned Judge in AkbaruddinOwaisi in paragraphs 34 and 35 of the report on the groundthatthereisno prohibition in the law even for an informant or complainant or an initiator of criminal prosecution to object to the withdrawal of a complaint by the State.
59, But, yet another forceful argument on similar lines arising out of Section 320 of the Code was not projected beforethelearned Single Judge in Akbaruddin Owaisi. Certain offencesenlisted in the table under sub-section (1) of Section 320 can be compounded without the permission of the Court and certain other offences enlisted in the table under sub-section (2) of Section320can be compounded with the permission of the Court. ThoughcolumnNo.3 of the tables under sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section320make it clear that only the victim (and not the de facto complainant or informant) can compound the offences with the accused, the registration of single FIR in cases where innumerable persons have been cheated, would lead to the possibility of partial compounding or compounding in installments.
45
VRS, J & SVB, J
W.P.Nos,29374 of 2016 & 10185, 11201, 11245, 12943 & 13005 of 2017
46
VRS, J & SVB, J
W.P.Nos.29374 of 2016 & 10185, 11201, 11245, 12943 & 13005 of 2017
direction was issued to the police not to register any fresh FIRs but to treat all further complaints as statements underSection161 of the code.
47
VRS, J & SVB, J
W.P.Nos.29374 of 2016 & 10185, 11201, 11245, 12943 & 13005 of 2017
The number of depositors to whom such a huge amountwasdue from Agri Gold group of companies and Akshaya Gold,wasabout32 lakhs of people. These companies had branches in several places. The depositors, who invested money in various branches, have independent causes of action.
48
VRS, J & SVB, J
W.P.Nos.29374 of 2016 & 10185, 11201, 11245, 12943 & 13005 of 2017
Section 6, any pending case in any other Court to which the provisions of the Act apply, shall stand transferred to the Special Court. The Act has been given overriding effect upon the other laws, under Section 14, which states that the provisionsoftheActshall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force. In fact, under Section 13 (1), the Special Court constituted underthisActcantake cognizance without the accused being committed to itfortrial.
■*
49
VRS, J & SVB, J
W.P.Nos.29374 of 2016 & 10185, 11201, 11245, 12943 & 13005 of 2017
conveniently. With these observations, the writ petitions are dismissed.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending
shall stand closed.
V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J
S.V. BHATT, J
Date: 04-07-2017
Ak/JS/Ksn
Note: L.R. copy to be marked.
B.O./Ksn
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the registration of multiple FIRs relating to the same facts against the same accused is illegal and liable to be quashed?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Jakir Hussain Kosangi v. State of Andhra PradeshReferred¶127
Writ Petition No.29374 of 2016 and batch, dated 04.07.2017
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Banoji Rao Moganti
B.Rajesh
Kaja Venkatesh
State of Andhra Pradesh
Station House Officer
Narala Rantana Reddy
K MANMADHA RAO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
