Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ANIL KUMAR SINHA, J.
M/s Majhaulia Sugar Industries Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondents
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1281 of 2021
Decided on : 19-10-2023
FIR - Criminal Procedure - Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act 2016, IPC Sections 284, 285, 403, 406, 407, 408, 409, 420, 34 - The court discussed the legality of multiple FIRs arising from the same incident, emphasizing that while generally, a second FIR for the same transaction is impermissible, distinct FIRs can be maintained if they arise from different causes of action or involve different parties. The court interpreted the provisions of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act and the IPC, concluding that the second FIR was valid due to the broader implications of the alleged conspiracy and violations of licensing terms.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, a sugar industry company and its Chief General Manager, sought to quash a second FIR registered against them for alleged violations related to the illegal siphoning of ethanol, arguing that it was based on the same facts as a prior FIR and thus impermissible.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the two FIRs were fundamentally different, with distinct informants, accused parties, and scopes of investigation. The second FIR was deemed valid as it involved broader allegations of conspiracy and violations of licensing terms, which were not covered in the first FIR.
Issues: Whether the second FIR was maintainable given that it arose from the same incident as the first FIR, and whether it violated the petitioners' rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that multiple FIRs can be registered for the same incident if they arise from different causes of action or involve different parties. The distinction between the two FIRs justified the continuation of the second FIR.
Final Decision: The petition to quash the second FIR was dismissed, affirming its validity based on the distinct nature of the allegations and the broader implications of the investigation.
Statutes Discussed
• Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act: Sections 30(a), 31, 30(f), 32, 36, 38, 41(1), 47 discussed in context of offences in both FIRs, with detailed quote of Section 30 outlining penalties for unlawful manufacture, transport, etc. of intoxicants (!) (!) (!) (!) - (!) • CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE: Sections 173, 169, 170, 162 referenced regarding FIR process, investigation, and statements during investigation (!) • INDIAN PENAL CODE: Sections 284, 285, 403, 406, 407, 408, 409, 420, 34 alleged in the second FIR (!) (!) • CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Article 21 invoked by petitioners claiming violation by second FIR (!)
Case Laws Discussed
No relevant case laws found in the judgment text.
Ratio Decidendi
• Multiple FIRs are permissible for the same incident if they pertain to different causes of action, involve different parties, or have different scopes of investigation, even if arising from the same incident; second FIR not barred if it covers broader conspiracy not addressed in first FIR (!) (!) • Test of sameness applied: FIRs relate to same incident or transaction only if identical in facts, occurrence, informants, accused, and scope; distinct FIRs with separate causes justify second FIR (!) (!) (!)
Court Observations
• Two FIRs fundamentally different: distinct informants from different districts, different accused, different offences, and substantially different scopes; first FIR limited to siphoning by tanker driver/owners, second FIR addresses license breaches, warehouse irregularities, and larger conspiracy (!) (!) (!) • Second FIR valid due to allegations of connivance in black marketing of ethanol via license/N.O.C. violations (e.g., digital locks, CCTV, dharmkanta), not covered in first FIR (!) (!) • Generally, second FIR for same transaction impermissible, but permissible if incidents form different crimes or parts of transaction with broader ramifications (!) (!) (!) (!)
Final Conclusion
• Petition to quash second FIR dismissed; second FIR held valid and maintainable due to its distinct nature from first FIR, separate cause of action, and broader investigative scope (!) (!)
JUDGMENT :
ANIL KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. The present writ application has been filed for quashing of the First Information Report bearing Majhauliya P.S. Case No. 230 of 2020 dated 26-04-2020 contained in (Annexure-6) registered for the offences under Sections 284, 285, 403, 406, 407, 408, 409, 420 and 34 of the I.P.C. read with Sections 30 (a), 31 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act 2016.
2. The factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner no. 1 is a company in the name and style of M/s Majhaulia Sugar Industries Pvt. Ltd. and the petitioner no. 2 is its Chief General Manager. The petitioners are holding N.O.C./license and have a distillery at Majhauliya, which is engaged in production of ethanol. The ethanol is being transported by the petitioners from its distillery to various oil companies through M/s Indian Tankers Pvt. Ltd. after due verification of G.P.S. and digital seal/lock. According to the petitioners the electronic locks are being provided by M/s M.S.D. Telemematrix Pvt. Ltd.
3. On 25-04-2020 a team constituted by the Superintendent [Excise], East Champaran reached near N.H. 28 and found one tanker near an old hotel bearing Registration No. UP-53-AT-1786 whose one of the seals from five of its chambers was found broken, which was being used for siphoning of ethanol in a pick-up van bearing Registration No. BR-02-GA-1445. Upon search 200 liters container fully loaded with ethanol and another container which was connected through a pipe having 20 liters of ethanol and 04 empty containers of 35 liters each were found in the pick-up van. In the tanker three chambers were found without seal and the chamber rod was also found not related to the digital lock. Accordingly, on 26.04.2020, an F.I.R. bearing Excise P.S. Case No. 195 of 2020 was registered on the basis of information given, under Section 30 (a) (f), 31, 32, 36, 38, 41(1) & 47 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 against eight accused persons i.e. the owner of the tanker, tanker driver, owner of the pick-up van etc.
4. Subsequently, one another F.I.R. was registered bearing Majhauliya P.S. Case No. 230 of 2020 on 26.04.2020 against the petitioners and others for the offences under Sections 284, 285, 403, 406, 407, 408, 409, 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 30 (a) and 31 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act wherein the allegations are with regard to several violations/infirmities on the part of the accused persons due to which illegal business of ethanol was taking place. The petitioners have filed the present case for quashing of Majhauliya P.S. Case No. 230 of 2020.
5. It is further case of the petitioners that on getting information about the occurrence dated 25.04.2020 and being unaware about Majhauliya P.S. Case No. 230 of 2020 the petitioner no. 2 lodged an F.I.R. bearing Majhauliya P.S. Case No. 232 of 2020 dated 27.04.2020 for the offences under Sections 409, 462, 379, 34 of the I.P.C. read with Section 30 (a), 31 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act 2016 against the transporter i.e. M/s Indian Tankers Pvt. Ltd. and its driver for causing loss to the tune of Rs. 11,66,287.50/-for their act of indulgence in illegal siphoning of ethanol
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that in relation to one occurrence two FIRs have been lodged. The FIR against the petitioners has been instituted for the offences for which an FIR filed earlier already existed. The 1st FIR is Excise Case No. 195 of 2020 in which petitioners are not accused and thereafter 2nd FIR came to be lodged vide Majhauliya PS Case No. 230 of 2020 in which the petitioners have been made accused for the same facts and occurrence. The 2nd FIR is not maintainable and is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
7. He further argued that just because the name of petitioners came in the process of investigation the Police is not empowered to lodge another FIR but can include the accused persons in the earlier FIR at the time of filing of charge s
The registration of multiple FIRs is permissible if they pertain to different causes of action or involve different parties, even if they arise from the same incident.
The Court emphasized the importance of accepting FIR allegations as true at the quashing stage and addressing disputed questions of fact during trial.
At the quashing stage, the allegations in the FIR are to be accepted as true, and disputed questions of fact and defenses should be raised at an appropriate stage in the trial.
A second FIR cannot be registered for the same transaction involving cognizable offences; all related offences must be investigated under a single FIR.
The High Court may exercise inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings if the dispute involves compoundable offences under the Excise Act to prevent the abuse of process ....
Abuse of Process of Law - Multiple FIRs for Same Occurrence
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
