Back
2006 Supreme(Cal) 9
High Court Of Calcutta
Arun Kumar Bhattacharya
ABDUL HAI MONDAL - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
C. R. R. 2614 Of 2003
Decided On : 01/06/2006
HARADHAN BANERJI, Subhabrata Das, SUBHASISH PACHHAL
Multiple FIRs cannot be registered for the same incident. Only the first FIR, which contains the initial information about a cognizable offense, is valid.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 482 - QUASHING OF FIR - SAME TRANSACTION - MULTIPLE FIRS - ABUSE OF PROCESS OF LAW - LEGAL PRINCIPLE: Multiple FIRs cannot be registered for the same incident. Only the first FIR, which contains the initial information about a cognizable offense, is valid.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners filed a revisional application under Section 482 CrPC to quash an FIR registered against them for allegedly attacking and injuring several individuals, including one who later succumbed to his injuries. The petitioners claimed that the incident was the same as that mentioned in another FIR registered earlier, and that the subsequent FIR was an abuse of the legal process.
Finding of the Court:
The court compared the facts of the two FIRs and found that they related to different incidents. The first FIR was against unknown persons for attacking police personnel, while the second FIR was against the petitioners for attacking the de facto complainant and other cultivators, resulting in the death of one person. The court held that the second FIR did not fall within the purview of the same transaction as the first FIR and was, therefore, not barred by the principle of "same transaction."
Issues: 1. Whether the second FIR was registered for the same incident as the first FIR. 2. Whether the registration of the second FIR amounted to an abuse of the process of law.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court relied on the principles laid down in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, State of Punjab v. Kasturi Lal, and Krishna Chandra Chowdhury v. State of West Bengal to hold that multiple FIRs cannot be registered for the same incident. 2. The court held that the second FIR did not relate to the same incident as the first FIR, as it involved different parties, different offenses, and different factual circumstances.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revisional application, holding that the second FIR was not liable to be quashed.
( 1 ) THE hearing stems from an application under section 482 Cr. PC filed by the petitioner praying for quashing the FIR being No. 54 dated 01. 07. 98 of P. S. Haroa, North 24-Parganas, pending in the court of Id. SDJM, Basirhat, North 24-Parganas.
( 2 ) THE petitioners' contention as per above application is that on 30. 06. 98 at about 10. 00 a. m. accused Sahid Munshi, Sibobrata Das etc. accompanied by a few henchmen being armed with deadly weapons assembled at Gazitola fishery. Out of them one anti-social element viz Sirajul Biswas threatened the petitioners to dispossess them declaring that even if police personnel come, they would not be spared if the petitioners tried to intimidate them, for which an FIR was lodged on behalf of the petitioners, and Haroa P. S. Case No. 52 dated 30. 06. 98 under sections 148/149/447/435/379 IPC/25/27 Arms Act was started, and the investigation is still pending. Due to flow of accused persons, as the petitioners were scared about loss of their lives and properties, an information was lodged on behalf of the petitioners on 01. 07. 98 with S. P. , North 24-Parganas regarding unlawful assembly of the accused persons along with their hired henchmen at about 10. 00 a. m. with an intention to trespass into the fishery of the petitioners.
( 3 ) AT the instance of A. S. I. Dilip Chandra Das, Haroa P. S. Case No. 53 dated 30. 06. 98 under sections 148/14 9/325/326/307/353/332/379 IPC/25/26 of arms Act/9 (b) of the Indian Explosive Act was started for trespassing into the fishery, unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons and firing at the possessors of the fishery and police personnel, and severely assaulting a few police constables, one of whom lost eyesight completely, and the investigation is still pending. As the accused persons are basically criminal in nature, they dared to interfere with the possession of the petitioners which was protected by deployment of police personnel by order of High Court dated 23. 03. 90 passed in C. R. No. 3095 (W)/90.
( 4 ) THE accused persons hatched up a conspiracy against the petitioners through one Habibur Baidya who lodged a complaint being registered as FIR no. 54 dated 01. 07. 98 inter alia alleging that on 30. 06. 98 at about 9. 30 a. m. when the de facto complainant was busy with works at Alaghar of the fishery, zamat Ali Mondal (since deceased) and others being armed with deadly weapons attacked him and other cultivators, and in such gangwar Habul Patra sustained bullet-injury on chest and succumbed to injuries and that the de facto complainant and other cultivators including few backward women and children were also injured, and when the local villagers assembled there for rescuing them, the petitioners fled away after looting Rs. 15,567/- and setting fire to the Alaghar, in which chargesheet was submitted on 12. 12. 90 in G. R. Case No. 546/98 under sections 148/149/447/323/397/302/435/324/379 IPC.
( 5 ) ON the self-same incident the accused persons lodged another FIR being no. 58 dated 02. 07. 98 under sections 147/148/149/326/307 IPC/25/26 of Arms act through one Smt. Ranjana Sardar inter alia alleging that on 30. 06. 98 at about 11. 00 a. m. when the de facto complainant along with other women were proceeding towards Gagramari village, Alam Mondal and some other fishery owners of Gazitola fired at them without any rhyme or reason, and Razak mondal and Abdul Rahman Mondal fired, for which some of the women were injured and admitted to Calcutta Hospital and Haroa Hospital. The investigation in that case is still pending.
( 6 ) ALL the FIRs made by the petitioners as well as accused persons relate to the same cause of action, and the police lodged respective cases against the accused and created multiplicity of proceedings. By entertaining the later two firs lodged by the accused persons, the police authorities have caused abuse of the process of law which are not tenable in law. The FIR being No. 53 dated 30. 06. 9
