MALASRI NANDI
Jekirul Hussain, S/o Late Letiful Hussain – Appellant
Versus
State of Assam, Represented by the Public Prosecutor, Assam – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr S N Tamuli, learned counsel assisted by Ms A Begum, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr P S Lahkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the State of Assam/respondent No. 1.
2. This is an application filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying for setting aside/quashing the FIR dated 14.04.2021, which was registered as Sivasagar PS Case No. 447/2021 and the charge sheet No. 104/2021, dated 03.05.2021 and the entire proceeding of PRC Case No. 634/2021, arising out of Sivasagar PS Case No. 447/2021, under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent No. 2 is the wife of the present petitioner. After their marriage they lived together as husband and wife and out their wedlock two children were born, but subsequently, the respondent No. 2 left the house of her husband and started to live in the house of her parents and, thereafter, lodged four FIRs against the present petitioner on the same ground of physical torture and harassment.
4. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that i
Ram Lal Narang vs. State of Delhi; reported in (1979) 2 SCC 322
Surender Kaushik & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.;(2013) 5 SCC 148
State of Jharkhand–Vs. Lalu Prasad @Lalu Prasad Yadav;(2017) 3 SCC (Cri.) 569
TT Antony vs. State of Kerala; (2001) 6 SCC 181
Upkar Singh vs. Ved Prakash & Ors(2004) 13 SCC 292
Awadesh Kumar Jha @ Akhilesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar; (2016) 3 SCC 8
Arnab Ranjan Goswami vs. Union of India; (2020) 14 SCC 12
Amitbhai Anil Chandra Shah vs. CBI; (2013) 6 SCC 348
Anju Choudhury vs. State of UP; (2013) 6 SCC 384
Babu Bhai vs. State of Gujarat;(2010) 12 SCC 254.
Chirag M Pathak vs. Dollyben Kantilal Patel
C Muniappan & Ors. vs. State of Tamil Nadu; (2010) 9 SCC 567
Mohan Baitha & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Anr.; (2001) 4 SCC 350
Nirmal Singh Kahlon vs. State of Punjab & Ors.;(2009) 1 SCC 441
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of the First Information Report and the test of 'sameness' to determine the permissibility of multiple FIRs for the same occurrence.
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 held that multiple FIRs cannot be registered for the same incident under established legal principles, emphasizing prohibitions against successive registrations when based on identical clai....
Multiple FIRs cannot be registered for the same incident arising from identical accusations against the same parties, highlighting abuse of process and procedural injustice.
A second FIR is permissible if it presents a different version of the same incident, allowing for new discoveries to be considered.
The emphasis of the Apex Court is on the commonality and sameness of the accusations pertaining to the same incident, and the registration of the second FIR would be barred whenever further informati....
A second FIR with respect to the same offence/occurrence/incident is not maintainable and constitutes an abuse of the process of law.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.