SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(AP) 1192

ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI
K. Sreenivasa Reddy, J.
Dr. Gade Venugopal Rao & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State of A. P.,rep.,pp & Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Petition No. 13380 of 2015
Decided On : 14-06-2022

Advocates appeared:
T Lakshmi Narayana, Advocate, Nageshwara Rao Pappu, Advocate, P S Rajasekhar, Advocate

Registration of a second FIR for the same offence and transaction is impermissible and violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Headnote:

CRIMINAL PETITION - QUASHING OF PROCEEDINGS - SECOND FIR - SAME OFFENCE - SAME TRANSACTION - TEST OF SAMENESS - SECTION 482 CRPC - SECTION 156 (3) CRPC - SECTION 202 (1) CRPC - SECTION 302 IPC - SECTION 306 IPC - SECTION 120B IPC - ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - T.T. ANTHONY V. STATE OF KERALA - AMITBHAI ANILCHANDRA SHAN V. THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioners sought to quash criminal proceedings initiated against them based on a private complaint filed by the 2nd respondent, alleging offences under Sections 120B, 302, 201, 323, 506, 509 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The complaint was referred to the police under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), leading to the registration of an FIR. The petitioners contended that the complaint was filed at a belated stage and amounted to a second FIR for the same offence, as an earlier FIR had been registered in respect of the same incident.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the allegations in the private complaint and the earlier FIR were not identical. The first FIR pertained to an offence under Section 306 IPC (abetment to suicide), while the second FIR alleged offences under Sections 302 (murder), 120B (criminal conspiracy), and others. The court held that the two FIRs could not be considered the same since the accused, offenses, and circumstances differed.

Issues: 1. Whether the second FIR constituted a second FIR for the same offence and transaction as the earlier FIR. 2. Whether the registration of the second FIR violated the petitioners' fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court applied the test of sameness to determine whether the two FIRs related to the same incident or transaction. It held that the allegations in the two FIRs were not identical, and thus, they could not be considered the same. 2. The court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in T.T. Anthony v. State of Kerala and Amitbhai Anilchandra Shan v. The Central Bureau of Investigation, which held that registration of a second FIR for the same offence and transaction is impermissible and violates Article 21 of the Constitution.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, holding that the two FIRs were not the same and that the registration of the second FIR did not violate the petitioners' fundamental rights.

JUDGMENT

K. Sreenivasa Reddy, J. - This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'CrPC'), is filed to quash the proceedings in FIR No.349 of 2015 of Tadepalli police station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 302, 201, 323, 506, 509 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC'). Petitioners herein are a.1 to a.6 in the said crime.

2. a private complaint has been lodged by 2nd respondent herein against the petitioners for the aforesaid offences and the same was referred to police under Section 156 (3) CrPC to police. Pursuant to the same, police registered the CFR as a case in crime No.349 of 2015 of Tadepalli police station for the aforesaid offences on 07.11.2015.

3. 2nd respondent herein filed Writ Petition No.14613 of 2014 before the erstwhile composite High Court seeking a direction to conduct re-postmortem on the body of deceased Krishna Priya, which was buried. By an order dated 08.08.2014, the composite High Court disposed of the Writ Petition, directing the Superintendent, Government General Hospital, Guntur to conduct re- postmortem on the body of the deceased Krishnan Priya.

The Composite High Court also directed the Station House Officer, Tadepalli police station to provide required assistance to the Superintendent, Government General Hospital, Guntur. The Composite High Court directed to follow due procedure for exhuming the body and to videograph in exhuming the body, and to conduct re-postmortem. The entire exercise was ordered to be completed within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the said order.

4. aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 08.08.2014, passed by the learned single Judge of the Composite High Court, 1st petitioner herein, who is husband of 2nd respondent herein, filed Writ appeal No.1142 of 2014 before a Division Bench against 2nd respondent and other officials. a Division Bench of the Composite High Court passed order dated 10.09.2014 in W.a.M.P. No.2741 of 2014 in W.a. No.1142 of 2014, which reads as under:

    'We have seen the order of the learned trial Judge and we have heard the learned counsel.

    We are of the prima facie view that the order of the learned trial Judge is apparently without any basis of law as the post mortem was carried out as it was a case of unnatural death, as long back as on 11.02.2014. Moreover, there has not been any FIR or complaint with regard to the death of the deceased. For what purpose, further post mortem is to be carried out is not understandable by this Court. On the alleged ground that the post mortem is not properly conducted, for that matter body cannot be exhumed because sentimental value is involved. There must be some logical basis. Hence, the order impugned is stayed. We make it clear that pendency of this appeal or this order will not preclude the respondent/writ petitioner from taking action in accordance with law.'

    5. 1st petitioner herein filed W.a.M.P. No.1927 of 2015 in the abovesaid Writ appeal seeking a direction to permit him to file certified copy of FIR No.37 of 2014 dated 12.02.2014 of Tadepalli police station; certified copy of opinion of the a.P. Forensic Laboratory regarding examination of documents in the said crime and photostat copy of certified copy of remand report on behalf of prosecution in the said crime, as additional material papers in the Writ appeal. 2nd respondent herein filed W.a.M.P. No.2171 of 2015 in the aforesaid Writ appeal praying to dismiss the aforesaid petition filed by 1st petitioner herein and reject the documents sought to be filed as additional material papers. By its order dated 27.08.2015, the Division Bench disposed of the Writ appeal, observing as under:

      'We have heard the appeal for some time. In the course of hearing, Mr.D.V.Sitarama Murthy, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.1, on instructions, prayed for withdrawal of the writ petition bearing W.P. No.14613 of 2014 and sought direction to the police to take

          Click Here to Read the rest of this document
          1
          2
          3
          4
          5
          6
          7
          8
          9
          10
          11
          Judicial Analysis

          AI

          SupremeToday Portrait Ad
          supreme today icon
          logo-black

          An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

          Please visit our Training & Support
          Center or Contact Us for assistance

          qr

          Scan Me!

          India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

          For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

          whatsapp-icon Back to top