Very Important Points
1. Second FIR on same incident and same facts is not permissible under Cr.P.C.
2. Though Court cannot supervise investigation by Police into cognizable offences but it can interdict the investigation in case police transgresses its statutory power, to meet the ends of justice.

Headnote:(i) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 154—Registration of FIR in cognizable cases—Meaning and scope—Effect of subsequent Sections 155 to 173—Offences under Sections 302, 307, 326 r/w Section 149 IPC—Minister inaugurating Town Hall—Apprehension of trouble—FIR lodged—Executive Magistrate, Dy. S.P. and Police escort party appointed—Demonstration—Lathi charge and firing—5 dying, many injured—Police action praised—Charge in Government—Commission of Enquiry—2nd FIR lodged—Executive Magistrate, Dy. S.P. and 14 Police Constables charged of cognizable offences—Whether 2nd FIR is permissible for same subject matter under Cr.P.C.? (No)—Whether the accused can ask for quashing of criminal proceedings ? (Yes)—High Court upheld for quashing criminal proceeding on 2nd FIR but disapproved of fresh investigation—Case law referred (Cross Ref: Cr.P.C. 1973—Section 482—Constitution of India Articles 226/227, 19 and 21)—Order accordingly.
       Held : Sub-section (1) of Section 154 of Cr.P.C. contains four mandates to an officer in-charge of a police station. The first enjoins that every information relating to commission of a cognizable offence if given orally shall be reduced to writing and the second direct that it be read over to the informant; the third requires that every such information whether given in writing or reduced to writing shall be signed by the information and the fourth is that the substance of such information shall be entered in the station house daily. It will be apt to note here a further directive contained in sub-section (1) of Section 157 of Cr.P.C. which provides that immediately on receipt of the information the officer in charge of the Police Station shall send a report of every cognizable offence to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence and then proceed to investigate or depute his subordinate officer to investigate the facts and circumstances of the case. Sub-section (2) entitles the informant to receive a copy of the information, as recorded under sub-section (1), free of cost. Sub-section (3) says that in the event of an officer in charge of a police station refusing to record the information as postulated under sub-section(1), a person aggrieved thereby may send the substance of such information in writing and by post to the Superintendent of Police concerned who is given an option either to investigate the case himself or direct the investigation to be made by a police officer subordinate to him, in the manner provided by Cr.P.C., if he is satisfied that the information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. The police officer to whom investigation is entrusted by the Superintendent of Police has all the powers of an officer in charge of the police station in relation to that offence. As information given under sub-section (1) of Section 154 of Cr.P.C. is commonly known as First Information Report (F.I.R.) though this term is not used in the Code. It is a very important document. And as its nick name suggests it is the earliest and the first information of a cognizable offence recorded by an officer in charge of a police station. It sets the criminal law into motion and marks the commencement of the investigation which ends up with the formation of opinion under Section 169 or 170 of Cr. P.C., as the case may be, and forwarding of a police report under Section 173 of Cr. P.C. It is quite possible and it happens not infrequently that more informations than one are given to a police officer in charge of a police station in respect of the same incident involving one or more than one cognizable offences. In such a case he need not enter every one of them in the station house diary and this is implied in Section 154 of Cr.P.C. Apart from a vague information by a phone call or a cryptic telegram, the information first entered in the station house diary, kept for this purpose, by a police officer in charge of a police station is the First Information Report – F.I.R. postulated by Section 154 of Cr.P.C. All other informations made orally or in writing after the commencement of the investigation into the cognizable offence disclosed from the facts mentioned in the First Information Report and entered in the station house diary by the police officer or such other cognizable offences as may come to his notice during the investigation, will be statements falling under Section 162 of Cr.P.C. No such information/statement can properly be treated as an F.I.R and entered in the station house diary again, as it would in effect be a second FIR and the same cannot be in conformity with the scheme of the Cr.P.C. Take a case where an FIR mentions cognizable offence under Section 307 or 326 I.P.C. and the investigating agency learns during the investigation or receives a fresh information that the victim died, no fresh FIR under Section 302 I.P.C. need be registered which will be irregular, in such a case alteration of the provision of law in the first FIR is the proper course to adopt. Let us consider a different situation in which H having killed W, his wife, informs the police that she is killed by an unknown person or knowing that W is killed by his mother or sister, H owns up the responsibility and during investigation the truth is detected; it does not require filing of fresh FIR against H–the real offender-who can be arraigned in the report under Section 173(2) or 173(8) of Cr.P.C., as the case may be. It is of course permissible for the investigating officer to send up a report to the concerned Magistrate even earlier that investigation is being directed against the person suspected to be accused. The scheme of the Cr.P.C. is that an officer in charge of a Police Station has to commence investigation as provided in Section 156 or 157 of Cr.P.C. on the basis of entry of the First Information Report, on coming to know of the commission of a cognizable offence. On completion of investigation and on the basis of evidence collected he has to form opinion under Section 169 or 170 of Cr.P.C., as the case may be, and forward his report to the concerned Magistrate under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. However, even after filing such a report if he comes into possession of further information or material, he need not register a fresh FIR, he is empowered to make further investigation, normally with the leave of the court, and where during further investigation he collects further evidence, oral or documentary, he is obliged to forward the same with one or more further reports; this is the import of sub-section (8) of Section 173 Cr.P.C. From the above discussion it follows that under the scheme of the provisions of Sections 154, 1‘55, 156, 157, 162, 169, 170 and 173 of Cr.P.C. only the earliest or the first information in regard to the commission of a cognizable offence satisfies the requirements of Section 154 Cr.P.C. Thus there can be no second F.I.R. and consequently there can be no fresh investigation on receipt of every subsequent information in respect of the same cognizable offence or the same occurrence or incident giving rise to one or more cognizable offences. On receipt of information about a cognizable offence or an incident giving rise to a cognizable offence or offences and on entering the F.I.R. in the station house diary, the officer in charge of a Police Station has to investigate not merely the cognizable offence reported in the FIR but also other connected offences found to have been committed in the course of the same transaction or the same occurrence and file one or more reports as provided in Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. (Paras 18, 19, 20 and 21)
       In the case on hand the second FIR is filed in respect of the same incident and on the same facts after about three years. (Para 23)
       The right of the police to investigate into a cognizable offence is a statutory right over which the court does not possess any supervisory jurisdiction under the Cr.P.C. (Para 24)
       The plenary power of the police to investigate a cognizable offence is, however, not unlimited. (Para 25)
       Where the police transgresses its statutory power of investigation the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or Article 226/227 of the Constitution and this Court in appropriate case can interdict the investigation to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. (Para 26)
       Held (after referring to cases to make an illustrative list). A just balance between the fundamental rights of the citizens under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution and the expansive power of the police to investigate a cognizable offence has to be struck by the Court. There cannot 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’s case (supra) it was, however, observed that it would be appropriate to conduct further investigation with the permission of the Court. However, the sweeping power of investigation does not warrant subjecting a citizen each 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 purview of Sections 154 and 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 investigation based on the second or successive FIRs, 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 and in respect of which pursuant to the first FIR either investigation is underway 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 Article 226/227 of the Constitution. (Para 28)
       (Applying above law to present facts).
       Held : In view of the orders of the Director General of Police to register a case and on the further direction of the Inspector General of Police, the officer in-charge of Police Station registered Crime No. 268/97 of Kuthuparamba Police Station. A comparison and critical examination of the FIRs in Crime Nos. 353 & 354 of 1994 on one hand and FIR in Crime No. 268/97 on the other, discloses that the date and place of occurrence are the same; there is alluding reference to the deaths caused due to police firing in the FIRs in Crime Nos. 353 and 354 of 1994. In any event, that fact was evident on the scene of occurrence. The narration of events, which we need not repeat here, are almost the same. The additional averments in Crime No. 268/97 are based on the findings in the report of the Commission. Having regard to the test laid down by this Court in Narang’s case, with which we are in respectful agreement, we find that in truth and substance the essence of the offence in Crime Nos. 353 and 354 of 1994 is the same as in Crime No. 268 of 1997 of Kuthuparamba Police Station. In our view, in sending information in regard to the same incident, duly enclosing a copy of the report of the commission of inquiry, to the Inspector General of Police for appropriate action, the Additional Chief Secretary adopted the right course of action. Perhaps the endorsement of the Inspector General of Police for registration of a case misled the subordinate police officers and the said letter with regard to the incident of November 25, 1994 at Kuthuparamba was registered again under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. which would be the second FIR and, in our opinion, on the facts of this case, was irregular and a fresh investigation by the investigating agency was unwarranted and illegal. On that date the investigations in the earlier cases (Crime Nos. 353 and 354 of 1994) were pending. The correct course of action should have been to take note of the findings and contents of the report, streamline the investigation to ascertain the true and correct facts, collect the evidence in support thereof, form an opinion under Sections 169 and 170 Cr.P.C., as the case may be, and forward the report/reports under Section 173(2) or Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. to the concerned Magistrate. The course adopted in this case, namely, the registration of the information as the second FIR in regard to the same incident and making a fresh investigation is not permissible under the scheme of the provisions of the Cr.P.C. as pointed out above, therefore, the investigation undertaken and the report thereof cannot but be invalid. We have, therefore, no option except to quash the same leaving it open to the investigating agency to seek permission in Crime No. 353/94 or 354/94 of the Magistrate to make further investigation, forward further report or reports and thus proceed in accordance with law. (Para 29)
       Held finally : For the aforementioned reasons, the registration of the second FIR under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. on the basis of the letter of the Director General of Police as Crime No. 268/97 of Kuthuparamba Police Station is not valid and consequently the investigation made pursuant thereto is of no legal consequence, they are accordingly quashed. We hasten to add that this does not preclude the investigating agency from seeking leave of the Court in Crime No. 353/94 and Crime No.354/94 for making further investigations and filing a further report or reports under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. before the competent Magistrate in the said cases. In this view of the matter, we are not inclined to interfere with the judgment of the High Court under challenge insofar as it relates to quashing of Crime No.268/97 of Kuthuparamba Police Station against the ASP (R.A. Chandrasekhar); in all other aspects the impugned judgment of the High Court shall stand set aside. (Para 36)
       Criminal Appeal No. 689 of 2001 {arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1522/2000) and Civil Appeal No. 4066 of 2001 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 8840/2000) filed by the appellants (T.T.Antony and Damodaran P. & Ors. Respectivaly) are allowed. Criminal Appeal Nos. 690-91 of 2001 (arising out of SLP (Crl. ) Nos. 2724-25/2000) filed by the State of Kerala are dismissed. (Para 38)
       (ii) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Sections 154, 169, 170, 173(8)—FIR of cognizable offences—Action by Police—Police transgressing its statutory powers—Charge in Government—Commission of Enquiry appointed—Commission submitting Report against police excesses—Accepted by Government—2nd FIR lodged—Investigation adopting Commission’s finding—Whether proper? What is the effect of report of the Enquiry Commission—Stated—Whether direction be given for investigation by CBI? (left open)—Case law referred.
       Held : It is thus seen that the report and findings of the Commission of Inquiry are meant for information of the Government. Acceptance of the report of the Commission by the Government would only suggest that being bound by the Rule of law and having duty to act fairly, it has endorsed to act upon it. The duty of the police – investigating agency of the State – is to act in accordance with the law of the land. This is best described by the learned law Lord – Lord Denning – in R.V. Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1968 (1) All E.L.R. 763 at p.769] observed as follows:
       "I hold it to be the duty of the Commissioner of Police, as it is of every chief constable, to enforce the law of the land. He must take steps so to post his men that crimes may be detected; and that honest citizens may go about their affairs in peace. He must decide whether or no suspected persons are to be prosecuted; and, if need be, bring the prosecution or see that it is brought; but in all these things he is not the servant of anyone, save of the law itself."
       Acting thus the investigating agency may with advantage make use of the report of the commission in its onerous task of investigation bearing in mind that it does not preclude the investigating agency from forming a different opinion under Section 169/170 of Cr.P.C. if the evidence obtained by it supports such a conclusion. In our view, the Courts civil or criminal are not bound by the report or findings of the Commission of Inquiry as they have to arrive at their own decision on the evidence placed before them in accordance with law. (Paras 34 and 35)
       Held also : On this conclusion it is unnecessary to deal with the other aspects of the case including the fourth point, namely to direct investigation of the case by the C.B.I. (Para 37)

Judgement Key Points

Based on the provided legal document, the key legal points are as follows:

The registration of a second FIR concerning the same incident and facts is generally not permissible under the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The First Information Report (FIR) is the earliest and primary document that sets the criminal law into motion; subsequent information related to the same incident cannot be treated as a new FIR if it pertains to the same facts (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The investigation should be based on the initial FIR, and any subsequent information should be incorporated through further reports under the relevant provisions of the Cr.P.C., rather than by registering a new FIR (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The police have a statutory right to investigate cognizable offences, but this power is not unlimited. Investigations must be conducted within the bounds of law, and the courts can interdict investigations that transgress statutory powers to prevent abuse or ensure justice (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The report and findings of a Commission of Inquiry are advisory and do not possess judicial or evidentiary power. While the government may accept such reports, courts are not bound by them and must decide cases based on evidence and law (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The investigation process must adhere to the statutory scheme, and any attempt to initiate a fresh investigation based on a second FIR for the same incident, after investigation has already commenced or concluded, can be challenged and potentially quashed (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The court has the authority to quash investigations or proceedings if they are found to be irregular, illegal, or an abuse of process, including cases where multiple FIRs are registered for the same incident without lawful justification (!) (!) (!) .
The investigation of a cognizable offence can be further pursued through reports under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C., which allows for further investigation and reporting without the necessity of registering a new FIR, provided it relates to the same incident and offences (!) (!) (!) .
The courts aim to maintain a balance between protecting citizens' fundamental rights and allowing police investigative powers, ensuring investigations are conducted lawfully without infringing on rights or encouraging misuse of legal procedures (!) (!) .
Any investigation or proceedings initiated in violation of these principles, especially involving multiple FIRs for the same incident, can be deemed invalid and subject to judicial review and quashing (!) (!) .

These points underscore the importance of adhering to the procedural safeguards and statutory provisions governing FIR registration and investigation, ensuring that investigations are lawful, non-duplicative, and free from abuse or irregularities.

Judgment

Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J.—Leave is granted in all the special leave petitions.

2. These four appeals arise out of the common judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in WA Nos. 2708/1999, 2709/1999, 2710/1999, 8/2000, 52/2000 and 200/2000 dated February 29, 2000. Criminal Appeal No. 689 of 2001 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.1522/2000) is filed by T.T. Antony, Deputy Collector and Executive Magistrate, Kannur, Civil Appeal No. 4066 of 2001 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 8840/2000) is filed by fourteen police constables; and Criminal Appeal Nos. 690-691 of 2001 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos.2724-25/2000 are filed by the State of Kerala. These appeals relate to the same incident and raise common questions of facts and law so they are being dealt with together.

3. The relevant facts, giving rise to these appeals, which have a strong political backdrop, need to be noticed for appreciating the contentions of the parties.

4. The Communist Party of India (Marxist), C.P.I.(M), is said to have a strong hold in Kannur District of the State of Karala. One Mr. M.V. Raghavan who was once a comrade-in-arms in C.P.I.(M) and was its M.L.A. for over 15 years, broke away from that party and formed a new party – ‘The Communist Marxist Party’ (CMP). He was elected as an M.L.A. on the ticket of CMP from the Azheekkode Constituency, Kannur District. The CMP became a constituent of United Democratic Front (UDF) which formed the Government and was in power in the State of Kerala during the relevant period. He was a Minister in UDF Government having the portfolio of Co-operation and Ports. This gave rise to retribution in the rank and file of C.P.I.(M) particularly in the youth wing (DYFI) which took upon itself to prevent his visits to Kannur District. In January 1993 during his visit to Azhikal (Kannur District) a few country-made bombs were hurled on him. In view of that incident, the then Government ordered elaborate security arrangements for all his visits to Kannur District. It appears, much against the advice of the district administration, the Minister finalised his visit, for inauguaration of the ‘evening branch of the Co-operative Urban Bank’ in the Alakkandy Complex at Kuthuparamba – Tellicherry Road (Kannur District) on November 25, 1994. Far from being auspicious, it turned out to be an ill-starred day not only for the victims of police excesses and their families but also for the public and the public authorities as five persons died and six persons were injured in the police firing purportedly resorted to for the protection of the Minister and of public and private properties. In the melee which preceded the police firing more than hundred persons suffered injuries in the lathi charge and a few police personnel also sustained injuries.

5. The police opened fire at two places – (i) in the proximity of the town hall on the orders of the Executive Magistrate and the Deputy Superintendent of Police and (ii) in the vicinity of Police Station, Kuthuparamba on the orders of the Superintendent of Police. In respect of the occurrence near the town hall, the Assistant Superintendent of Police of Thalassery registered Crime No.353/94 of Kuthuparamba Police Station under Sections 143, 147, 148, 332, 353, 324, 307 read with Section 149 IPC, Section 3(2)(e) of P.D.P.P.Act and Sections 3 and 5 of Explosive Substances Act against eight named and many other unidentifiable persons belonging to CPI(M) including the President of DYFI. In regard to the occurrence in the vicinity of the police station, the Superintendent of Police registered Crime No.354/94 of Kuthuparamba Police Station under Sections 143, 147, 148, 427, 307 read with Section 149 IPC and Section 3(2)(e) of P.D.P.P Act against unidentifiable persons of CPI(M) for forming an unlawful assembly. Both the said crimes were registered on the date of the incident – on November 25, 1994. On that day itself the Executive Magistrate submitted a report to the District

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2001 Supreme(SC) 924

Very Important Points1. Second FIR on same incident and same facts is not permissible under Cr.P.C.2. Though Court cannot supervise investigation by Police into cognizable offences but it can interdict the investigation in case police transgresses its statutory power, to meet the ends of justice.

Cases Referred (12)

Very Important Points
1. Second FIR on same incident and same facts is not permissible under Cr.P.C.
2. Though Court cannot supervise investigation by Police into cognizable offences but it can interdict the investigation in case police transgresses its statutory power, to meet the ends of justice.