Back
Quashes Multiple FIRs Against Former MLA Kuldeep Kumar Over Tiranga Yatra
The has delivered a significant ruling on the legality of successive criminal proceedings, multiple (FIRs) filed against former MLA Kuldeep Kumar. Presided over by Dr. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, the Court held that prosecuting the petitioner in multiple FIRs for the same incident violates constitutional protections against .
A Procession Under Scrutiny
The legal dispute originated from an Independence Day "Tiranga Yatra" held on . The prosecution alleged that the procession, led by then-MLA Kuldeep Kumar, violated COVID-19 safety protocols and government-issued prohibitory orders. Consequently, three separate FIRs—registered at New Ashok Nagar, Kalyanpuri, and Ghazipur police stations—were initiated against the organizers.
The petitioners sought to quash the proceedings in the Kalyanpuri and Ghazipur stations, arguing that all three cases stemmed from a singular, continuous event. They emphasized that since they had already been convicted in the New Ashok Nagar case, the subsequent prosecutions amounted to unfair and repetitive legal action.
The Core Legal Conflict
The State opposed the , contending that the Yatra’s movement through distinct territorial jurisdictions and different points in time created independent acts of disobedience, thereby justifying separate FIRs for each location.
However, the Court rejected this approach, focusing instead on the "
." The judgment emphasized that the foundational incident remained a single, uninterrupted Yatra. The Court noted,
"The allegations in the three FIRs disclose that the rally in question continued to move through different areas over the course of the afternoon... the material on record
indicates continuity of the same procession/rally rather than separate incidents."
Key Observations
The High Court’s ruling underscored that the mere crossing of police jurisdiction lines does not multiply an offence.
-
"The facts of the present case satisfy the ‘ ’ as there is – unity of purpose and design, proximity of time and place, and continuity of action."
-
"In the event of their conviction in the said FIRs, the petitioners would once again stand convicted and sentenced for the same alleged act of taking out the Tiranga Yatra on ... Such a consequence would run contrary to the protection embodied under ."
-
"Merely because the same procession passed through areas falling under jurisdictions of different police stations... would not, by itself, convert one continuous transaction into multiple independent transactions."
A Clarification on Precedent
While granting relief, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma provided a crucial caveat. The Court clarified that this judgment does not establish a blanket rule against multiple FIRs for violations. Rather, it distinguishes between a single ongoing incident and cases involving distinct offences, larger conspiracies, or counter-claims. In this instance, because the allegations, the event, and the accused remained identical, the court found the registration of multiple FIRs to be an .
The ultimately allowed the petitions and quashed the proceedings, effectively ending the multiple prosecutions stemming from the incident. This decision reinforces the legal safeguard against repetitive trials for the same underlying set of facts.
