1. Agreement for sale — Allegations of fraud and forgery — Registration of multiple FIRs based on the same set of facts. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 7 )
Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(SC) 1293
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
AJAY RASOGI, ABHAY S. OKA, JJ.
Tarak Dash Mukharjee & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1400 OF 2022 (Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 503 of 2020)
Decided on : 23-08-2022
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. M. Shoeb Alam, Adv. Ms. Sansriti Pathak, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Garvesh Kabra, AOR Mrs. Pooja Kabra, Adv.
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. M. Shoeb Alam, Adv. Ms. Sansriti Pathak, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Garvesh Kabra, AOR Mrs. Pooja Kabra, Adv.
The registration of multiple FIRs by the same person against the same accused for the same alleged offence constitutes an abuse of process of law and violates constitutional rights.
Headnote:
ABUSE OF PROCESS OF LAW - Criminal Procedure - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 504, 506 IPC
Fact of the Case:
The appellants sought to quash a second FIR registered against them, alleging that it was based on the same set of facts as the first FIR, which was already pending before the High Court. The second FIR accused the appellants of fraud and forgery in relation to a property sale agreement.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court declined to quash the second FIR, leading the appellants to appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court found that the registration of the second FIR was an abuse of process of law and violated the constitutional rights of the accused.
Issues: The main issue was whether the registration of multiple FIRs by the same person against the same accused for the same alleged offence constituted an abuse of process of law.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that allowing multiple FIRs for the same alleged offence would entangle the accused in multiple criminal proceedings, constituting an abuse of process of law and violating constitutional rights.
Final Decision: The Supreme Court quashed the second FIR, charge sheet, and summoning order, and ruled in favor of the appellants.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Registration of a second FIR based on the same facts and cause of action as a previous FIR constitutes a gross abuse of process. (Para 9 )
3. Both FIRs were filed by the same informant regarding the same agreement and allegations, with the second filed while the first remained pending. (Para 11 )
4. Multiple FIRs by the same person against the same accused for the same facts and allegations constitute an abuse of process and violate Articles 21 and 22. (Para 12 )
5. Second FIR, the resulting charge sheet, and the summoning order are quashed and set aside. (Para 13 )
6. Is the registration of a second FIR based on the same facts as a first FIR permissible?
No. If multiple FIRs by the same person against the same accused are registered for the same set of facts and allegations, it leads to multiple criminal proceedings for the same offence, which is an abuse of the process of law. (Para 12 )
7. How does the registration of successive FIRs on the same facts impact constitutional rights?
The registration of successive FIRs on the same set of facts and allegations at the instance of the same informant does not stand the scrutiny of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. (Para 12 )
8. What is the legal consequence when a second FIR is found to be based on the same facts as a pending first FIR?
Such a second FIR, along with any subsequent charge sheets and summoning orders based upon it, is liable to be quashed as it constitutes an abuse of the process of law. (Para 12 , 13 )
ORDER
ABHAY S. OKA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This petition takes exception to the judgment and order dated 26th August, 2019 passed by the learned Judge of the Allahabad High Court. The appellants invoked Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) for quashing a First Information Report (FIR) registered at the instance of the respondent no.4. The main ground of challenge by the appellants who were arraigned as accused in the FIR filed by the respondent no.4 was that it was the second FIR based on the same set of facts on which the earlier FIR was registered again at the instance of the respondent no.4. By the impugned judgment, the High Court declined to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
3. An agreement for sale dated 14th June, 2006 was executed by and between the appellants and four others as the vendors and one Prasidh Narayan Rai (the deceased husband of the respondent no.4) as the purchaser. The agreement for sale was executed by the appellants and four others in respect of their 5/6th undivided share in House Nos. B.12/120A, B.12/121, B.12/122, B.12/124 and B.12/125 situated at Mohalla Gauriganj, Nagar Nigam Ward Bhelupura, Varanasi city and House No. B. 15/71, B. 15/72, B. 15/81 and B. 15/91 situated at Mohalla Faridpura, Nagar Nigam Ward Bhelupura, Varanasi city. The agreed consideration was Rs.19,80,000/. A sum of Rs.15,00,000/ was paid by the late husband of the respondent no.4 to the appellant and other vendors as earnest money. In the year 2014, a written complaint was made by the respondent no.4 to the Station House Officer (S.H.O.) Police Station Bhelupur, Varanasi. In the said complaint, it was alleged by the respondent no.4 that after death of her husband, the appellant no.1 sold his share in the subject property on 27th July, 2013 to the appellant no.2. It was alleged that the appellants have committed offences of fraud and forgery. According to the case of the appellant, as per the information furnished to them under the Right to Information Act, 2005 by the officer in charge of Bhelupur Police station, the allegations in the complaint made by the respondent no.4 were found to be untrue and therefore, no action was taken on the complaint.
4. On 2nd April, 2015, on the basis of information furnished by the respondent no.4, First Information Report No.0109 (for short ‘the first FIR’) was registered against the appellant nos.1 and 2 at Bhelupur Police station. The said FIR specifically refers to the agreement of 14th June, 2006 executed by the appellants and others. It alleges that the appellant no.1 sold his undivided share on 27th July, 2013 to the appellant no.2, who is also shown as accused in the said FIR. It is alleged that the appellant nos.1 and 2 along with others met the respondent no.4 on 12th October, 2014. At that time, the appellants hurled abuses and they also threatened her. Offences punishable under Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 504, 506 IPC were alleged in the FIR.
5. The appellants approached the High Court of Allahabad by invoking Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the first FIR. It is stated in the present appeal that the said petition for quashing is pending in Allahabad High Court in which there is an interim order restraining the Police from taking coercive action on the basis of the first FIR. The interim order was passed on 17th February 2017.
6. The respondent no.4 filed a civil suit in the Civil Court at Varanasi in the year 2017 against the appellants and four others for specific performance of the said agreement dated 14th June, 2006. The said suit is being contested by the appellants.
7. On 13th September 2019, the respondent no.4 lodged one more FIR being FIR No.0177 in the same Police Station in which the appellants herein were shown as accused. The allegations made by the respondent no.4 in FIR No.0177 (for short ‘the second FIR’) are more or less identical to the allegations made in the first FIR. The property subject matter
