Allowed

Sri H R Nagaraj v. the State by

Karnataka HC5 Jan 2024WP/13102/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking quashing of proceedings pending in Crime No.115/2020 registered by Srirampuram Police Station on the ground that the crime is a second FIR on the same set of allegations already covered by Crime No.229/2020 registered by Vijayanagar Police Station.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings pending in Crime No.115/2020 quashed; writ petition allowed.

Sri H R Nagaraj Vs the State by — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:680 WP No. 13102 of 2020

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.13102 OF 2020 (GM-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI H R NAGARAJ S/O H.B RAJENDRA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS NO.19 (1573 OLD NUMBER) GROUND FLOOR, 2^ND BLOCK NAGAPPA BLOCK BENGALURU-560021

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. PRAVEEN C, ADVOCATE)

¶12

Digitally signed by ALBHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE STATE BY SRIRAMPURAM P.S REPT. STATION HOUSE OFFICER SRIRAMAPURA BENGALURU-560021 REPT. BY ITS HCGP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560001

¶15

STATE BY VIJAYANAGAR P.S REPT. STATION HOUSE OFFICER VIJAYANAGAR BENGALURU-560079

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:680 WP No. 13102 of 2020

¶17

REPT. BY ITS HCGP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560001

¶18

SMT.PRAGATHI W/O D.RAMESH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS DOOR NO.18, 3^RD CROSS NAGAPPA BLOCK SRIRAMAPURA BENGALURU-560021

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI.VENKATA SATYANARAYANA, HCGP FOR R.1 AND R.2; SRI.AJAY KADKOL, ADVOCATE FOR R.3)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE-C THE COMPLAINT DATED 15.10.2020 LEADING TO REGISTRATION OF FIR AND THE FIR REGISTERED BY THE R-1 IN CRIME NO.115/2020, IN SO FAR AS PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED AND ETC.

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The captioned writ petition is filed seeking quashing of the proceedings pending in Crime No.115/2020 for the offence punishable under Sections

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:680 WP No. 13102 of 2020

¶26

420, 465, 468, 323, 506, 120B and 34 of IPC on the ground that the crime is already registered before Vijayanagar Police Station on the same set of allegations and charge sheet is filed by the Investigating Officer in the said case.

¶27

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 – Complainant.

¶28

Respondent No.2 – Complainant alleging that petitioner – accused has fraudulently obtained a sale deed, a complaint is registered in Crime No.229/2020 before the Vijayanagar Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 417, 420, 423, 467, 468, 504, 506, 120B and 34 of IPC. This crime is registered on 14.10.2020.

¶29

Respondent No.2 – Complainant having lodged a complaint and consequently crime being registered by the concerned jurisdictional Police Station has come with a

¶30

¶31

NC: 2024:KHC:680 WP No. 13102 of 2020

¶32

second complaint, which is now registered in Crime

¶33

No.115/2020 before the Srirampura Police Station.

¶34

The law relating to multiple FIR is no more res-integra . The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of T.T.ANTONY V. STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS¹ has held that the aggrieved party cannot maintain a second complaint in regard to the same incident.

¶35

The principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above cited case is squarely applicable to the present case on hand. At the instance of respondent No.2 – Complainant if the crime is already registered and

¶36

charge sheet is laid by the Investigating Officer, respondent No.2 – Complainant could not have lodged second complaint on the same set of allegations. Therefore, I am of the view that the prosecution cannot proceed with the proceedings pending in FIR registered in Crime No.115/2020 of Srirampura Police Station.

¶37

1 (2001)6 SCC 181

¶38

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:680 WP No. 13102 of 2020

¶39

On meticulous examination of the allegations, this Court would find that the first crime registered in Crime No.229/2020 with Vijayanagar Police Station at the instance of Complainant i.e., respondent No.3 clearly covers entire controversy relating to offence. While present crime is registered in Crime No.115/2020 with Srirampura Police Station at the instance of the Complainant i.e., respondent No.3, allegations are obviously found to be part of the earlier FIR. Therefore, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the 'Doctrine of Sameness' is successfully established by the accused before this Court.

¶40

If contents of allegations in second FIR are already part of the crime registered in Crime No.229/2020, then I am of the view that proceedings initiated by way of second FIR are not sustainable and the same are liable to be quashed by this Court.

¶41

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:680 WP No. 13102 of 2020

¶42

The legality of the second FIR was extensively discussed in T.T.ANTONY VS. STATE OF KERALA (cited supra). While examining multiple FIRs, the Hon’ble Apex Court was of the view that unless FIRs appear to be substantially different from each other such as in facts and circumstances, the second FIR cannot be filed. The Hon’ble

¶43

Apex Court in the case of KRISHNA LAL CHAWLA AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND

¶44

ANOTHER² has held that second complaint on the same set of facts is not only impermissible but also would be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶45

I have given my anxious consideration to the allegations found in the first complaint and second complaint. Both FIRs relate to the same incident. On examining allegations in both complaints, in fact, this Court is of the view that they do not even relate to two or more transactions. Therefore, by applying principles of 'Doctrine of Sameness', I am of the view that second FIR

¶46

2 (2021) 5 SCC 435

¶47

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:680 WP No. 13102 of 2020

¶48

registered at the instance of respondent No.3, if permitted to proceed, amounts to abuse of process of law and same would lead to mis-carriage of justice. Therefore, the present FIR, which is admittedly second FIR registered on the same set of allegations is not sustainable and the same is liable to be quashed.

¶49