Surender Kaushik vs State of Uttar Pradesh

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2013 Supreme(SC) 160

K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, DIPAK MISRA
Surender Kaushik – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh – Respondent

Judgement Key Points

<sentence rank="1" From the aforesaid decisions, it is quite luminous that the lodgment of two FIRs is not permissible in respect of one and the same incident [24]. <sentence rank="2" The concept of sameness has been given a restricted meaning [24]. <sentence rank="3" It does not encompass filing of a counter FIR relating to the same or connected cognizable offence [24]. <sentence rank="4" Thus, rival versions in respect of the same incident do take different shapes and in that event, lodgment of two FIRs is permissible [24]. <sentence rank="5" What is prohibited is any further complaint by the same complainant and others against the same accused subsequent to the registration of the case under the Code, for an investigation in that regard would have already commenced and allowing registration of further complaint would amount to an improvement of the facts mentioned in the original complaint [24].

JUDGMENT :-

Dipak Misra, J.

Leave granted.

2. The present appeal, by special leave, is directed against the order dated 12.10.2012 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 15077 of 2012 wherein the High Court has declined to quash the FIR No. 442 of 2012 registered at P.S. Civil Lines, Meerut, that has given rise to Crime No. 491 of 2012 for offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “the IPC”).

3. At the very outset, it is requisite to be stated that the appellants had invoked the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashment of the FIR on two counts, namely, first, that no prima facie case existed for putting the criminal law into motion and, second, when on the similar and identical cause of action and allegations, FIR No. 425 of 2012 corresponding to Crime No. 475 of 2012 had already been registered, a second FIR could not have been lodged and entertained. The High Court, by the impugned order, has opined that it cannot be held that no prima facie case is disclosed and, thereafter, proceeded to issue certain directions in r

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2013 Supreme(SC) 160

K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, DIPAK MISRASurender Kaushik – AppellantVersusState of Uttar Pradesh – Respondent

K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, DIPAK MISRA
Surender Kaushik – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh – Respondent