Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
M.S. Sonak, Bharat P. Deshpande, JJ.
Akshay Rangayya - Appellant
Versus
State of Goa - Respondent
Criminal Writ Petition No. 87 of 2023
Decided On : 04-09-2023
FIR - Criminal Procedure - Sections 154, 220, 173 of CrPC; Sections 4, 8, 12, 21 of POCSO Act; Goa Children's Act, 2003 - The court discussed the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) regarding the registration of FIRs, emphasizing that only the first FIR regarding a cognizable offence should be registered. It highlighted the principle that multiple FIRs for the same transaction are unwarranted, referencing the case of T.T. Anthony v. State of Kerala. The court concluded that the two FIRs were part of the same transaction and directed the transfer of the second chargesheet to be treated as supplementary to the first.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, accused in two FIRs related to the kidnapping and sexual assault of minors, challenged the validity of the second FIR, arguing that both FIRs stemmed from the same incident involving the same victims and accused. The first FIR involved a 13-year-old victim, while the second involved a 16-year-old victim, both of whom were allegedly assaulted during the same transaction.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that both FIRs were based on the same occurrence and involved the same accused and victims. It noted that the investigation revealed that the victims were together during the incident, and thus, the registration of two separate FIRs was improper. The court directed that the second chargesheet be treated as a supplementary chargesheet to the first.
Issues: Whether the registration of two FIRs for the same transaction was valid and whether the second FIR should be quashed or treated as supplementary to the first.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principle established in T.T. Anthony v. State of Kerala, which states that only the first FIR regarding a cognizable offence should be registered, and subsequent information regarding the same incident should be investigated under the first FIR. The court emphasized that the two FIRs were part of the same transaction and should be consolidated.
Final Decision: The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, quashing the second FIR and directing that the second chargesheet be treated as a supplementary chargesheet to the first, to be tried together in the Children's Court.
JUDGMENT/ORDER
BHARAT P.DESHPANDE, J. - Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the matter is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.
2. Heard learned Counsel Shri Rohan Desai for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Goa Shri Pravin Faldessai.
3. The petitioner is praying for substantive reliefs vide prayer clauses (a) and (b) which reads thus:
(b) Treating the Second chargesheet as a supplementary chargesheet of the first FIR. Bearing FIR No.42/2023 by Panaji Police station dtd. 04/03/2023.
4. The petitioner is accused No.2 in Panaji Police Station Crime No.42 of 2023, registered on 04/03/2023. The petitioner is also accused no.1 in another Panaji Police Station Crime No.43 of 2023 registered on 04/03/2023 itself.
5. After completing the investigation, the Panaji Police Station filed two separate chargesheets in two different Courts. In respect of Panaji Police Station Crime No.42 of 2023, a chargesheet is filed before the Children's Court for the offences punishable under Ss. 363, 376(3), 354. 323, 328, 419 r/w. 34 IPC and Sec. 8 of Goa Children's Act, 2003 and Sec. 4, 8, 12, 21 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO), 2012. In the said chargesheet filed before the Children's Court, the present petitioner is accused No.2 whereas one Mr Javed Aktar Samiulla Ballari is accused No.2 and Mr Navlesh Kumar is accused No.3. The said FIR No.42 of 2023 was registered on the basis of a complaint lodged by Smt. ******** claimed that on 03/03/2023 at around 15.00 hours, unknown accused persons kidnapped her granddaughter, aged 13 years.
6. In respect of FIR No.43 of 2023, the chargesheet is filed before the POSCO Court at Panaji for the offences punishable under Ss. 363, 376, 328, and 419 r/w. 34 IPC and Ss. 4, 8, 12, 21 of POSCO Act, 2012. In this chargesheet, the petitioner is shown as accused No.1, whereas Mr Javed Aktar Samiulla Ballari and Navlesh Kumar are shown as accused Nos. 2 and 3. FIR 43 of 2023 was registered on 04/03/2023 on the basis of a complaint received from Smt ##### claiming that her minor daughter, aged 16 years, was kidnapped from her lawful guardianship on 03/03/2023 by unknown persons.
7. The chargesheet filed before the Children Court of Goa and the chargesheet filed before the POSCO Court at Panaji, if perused, would go to show that the victims in both the FIRs were together and they accompanied the accused persons including the present petitioner, on other motorcycles/ scooters to Vasco, returned to Caranzalem, stayed in one hotel during night time and during their such stay in the hotel, they were sexually assaulted. The sameness of the incident in both these chargesheets clearly revealed that the alleged offences in both these FIRs are clearly a part of the same transaction or the same occurrence, and the accused persons, as well as both the victims, were found moving together and then stayed in the same hotel though in different rooms.
8. It appears that the complainant, Smt *******, lodged her complaint on 04/03/2023, stating that her minor granddaughter was kidnapped on 03/03/2023. Such a complaint was lodged at Panaji Police Station itself. Immediately thereafter, Smt. ###### lodged her complaint, stating that on 03/03/2023, some unknown person kidnapped her minor daughter. Such a complaint was registered under FIR No.43 of 2023.
9. Investigation in both these FIRs shows that both the victims and the accused persons were traced. The victims were rescued, and the accused persons were taken into custody. During the investigation, th
The court established that multiple FIRs arising from the same transaction are impermissible under the Code of Criminal Procedure, and such cases should be consolidated into a single chargesheet for ....
Point of law: scope of doctrine of double jeopardy, observing that “in order to attract the provisions of Article 20(2) of the Constitution, there must have been both prosecution and punishment in re....
The court established that a common charge-sheet can be filed for distinct FIRs if the cases are interrelated and serve the interests of justice.
Successive FIRs for the same incident are permissible if they pertain to different incidents/crimes, and the seriousness of the offences and their impact on society must be considered in deciding whe....
Multiple FIRs alleging identical offences cannot be consolidated if they arise from distinct transactions involving different complainants and evidence.
Merely because three separate FIRs have been filed do not mean that they could not be clubbed together and one charge-sheet could not be filed.
Multiple FIRs arising from the same transaction are impermissible and must be consolidated for a fair investigation.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
