ORDER

While considering the prayer for bail of the petitioner in the present case, this court noticed that the police had registered two different F.I.Rs. in respect of the same matter arising out of the same transaction. This Court granted bail to the petitioner but in the concluding part of it’s order this Court called upon the Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna to file an affidavit as to whether lodging of two separate cases in respect of the same transaction is logical and permissible in law and is it not burdening the load of investigation on police and simuntaneously the whole judicial system in terms of pendency of cases.

2. Today, an affidavit duly sworn by the Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna has been filed. Annexure ‘A’ to the said affidavit is a copy of memo no. 1531/Policy decision dated 13.06.2022 issued under the signature of the Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna. A guideline has been issued to the investigating agency in the matter of registration of F.I.R. it is based on some of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court which are discussed in paragraph ‘3’ of the guideline. For purpose of a ready reference Annexure ‘A’ is being reproduced hereunder:—

^^fcgkj iqfyl eq[;ky;
¼vijk/k vuqla/kku foHkkx ,oa detksj oxZ ÁHkkx½
vkns'k
1- dkaMksa ds vuqla/kku dh leh{kk esa ns[kus esa vk;k gS fd ,d gh ?kVuk ;k ?kVukØe esa RkF;ksa] ?kVukLFky ,oa ?kVukØe dh lekurk ds ckotwn fofHkUu vf/kfu;eksa dh /kkjkvksa ds vUrxZr ,d ls T;knk ÁkFkfedh ntZ dh tk jgh gSA dqN ,sls Hkh n`"Vkar lkeus vk;s gSa] ftlesa ,d gh ?kVukØe ;k laO;ogkj ds Hkkx gksus okys rF;ksa esa fofHkUu O;fDr;ksa ds c;ku@vkosnu ds vk/kkj ij vyx&vyx dbZ ÁkFkfedh ntZ dh x;h gS] tks fof/klEer ugha gSA
2- fØŒ felŒ uEcj 64578@2021 eqdqy dqekj ,sŒtsŒ cuke fcgkj jkT; esa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;] iVuk }kjk fnukad 06-05-2022 dks ikfjr vkns'k esa fVIi.kh dh gS] fd%&

"…Whether lodging of the two separate cases in respect of the same transaction is logical and permissible in law and is it not burdening the load of investigation on police and simultaneously the whole judicial system in terms of pendency of cases. Prima-facie, in a case of this nature lodging of two criminal cases one after another does not inspire confidence."

3- mi;ZqDr fo"k; ls lacaf/kr fofHkUu ekeyksa esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk foLr`r U;k;kns'k ikfjr fd;s x;s gSa] ftuesa ls dqN U;k;kns'kksa ds eq[; va'k fuEu Ádkj gSa%&

In T.T. Antony vs State of Kerala and Others, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed,

“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 as the police officer 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 CrPC” and quashed the third FIR lodged on the basis of inquiry report of commission.

In Surender Kaushik Vs. State of U.P., the Hon’ble Supreme Court summed up that it is quite luminous that the lodgment of two FIRs is not permissible in respect of one and the same incident. The concept of sameness has been given a restricted meaning. It does not encompass filing of a counter FIR relating to the same or connected cognizable offence. 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.

In Shiv Shanker Singh Vs. State of Bihar, where two FIRs had been registered in relation to a case of dacoity, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in that the law does not prohibit registration and investigation of two FIRs in respect of the same incident in case the