Headnote:
CRIMINAL LAW - FIR - REGISTRATION - SECOND FIR - VALIDITY - INVESTIGATION - LEGALITY - COMMISSION OF INQUIRY - REPORT - EFFECT - FRESH INVESTIGATION - CBI.
Fact of the Case:

On November 25, 1994, police firing at two places in Kuthuparamba, Kannur District, resulted in the death of five persons and injuries to many others. Two FIRs were registered on the same day, one for the incident near the town hall and the other for the incident in the vicinity of the police station. On June 30, 1997, the Government accepted the report of the Commission of Inquiry appointed to inquire into the incident and directed that legal action be taken against those responsible. On July 2, 1997, the Director General of Police ordered the registration of a case and investigation by a senior officer. On July 4, 1997, the Inspector General of Police noted that firing without justification amounted to murder and issued direction to the Station House Officer to register a case under the appropriate Sections. Accordingly, Crime No. 268/97 was registered against the Minister, the Dy. S.P., and the Executive Magistrate. The High Court quashed the FIR in Crime No. 268/97 and directed a fresh investigation by the State Police headed by one of the three senior officers named in the judgment instead of a fresh investigation by CBI. The appellants, the Executive Magistrate, the Dy. S.P., and the constables, challenged the High Court's judgment.
Finding of the Court:

1. The registration of a second FIR under S.154 of Cr.P.C. on the basis of the letter of the Director General of Police as Crime No. 268/97 of Kuthuparamba Police Station is not valid and consequently the investigation made pursuant thereto is of no legal consequence. 2. The report and findings of the Commission of Inquiry are meant for information of the Government and are not binding on the investigating agency or the courts. 3. The investigating agency may with advantage make use of the report of the Commission in its onerous task of investigation bearing in mind that it does not preclude the investigating agency from forming a different opinion under S.169/170 of Cr.P.C. if the evidence obtained by it supports such a conclusion.
Issues: 1. Whether the registration of a second FIR under S.154 of Cr.P.C. is valid and can it form the basis of a fresh investigation? 2. Whether the appellants have otherwise made out a case for quashing of proceedings of Crime No. 268/97 Kuthuparamba Police Station? 3. What is the effect of the report of Sri. K. Padmanabhan, Commission of Inquiry? 4. Whether the facts and the circumstances of the case justify a fresh investigation by CBI.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Under the scheme of the provisions of S.154, 155, 156, 157, 162,169,170 and 173 of Cr.P.C. only the earliest or the first information in regard to the commission of a cognizable offence satisfies the requirements of S.154 Cr.P.C. Thus there can be no second FIR and consequently 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. 2. The report and findings of the Commission of Inquiry are meant for information of the Government. Acceptance of the report of the Commission by the Government would only suggest that being bound by the rule of law and having duty to act fairly, it has endorsed to act upon it. The duty of the police- investigating agency of the State - is to act in accordance with the law of the land. 3. The investigating agency may with advantage make use of the report of the Commission in its onerous task of investigation bearing in mind that it does not preclude the investigating agency from forming a different opinion under S.169/170 of Cr.P.C. if the evidence obtained by it supports such a conclusion.
Final Decision: 1. The registration of the second FIR under S.154 of Cr.P.C. on the basis of the letter of the Director General of Police as Crime No. 268/97 of Kuthuparamba Police Station is not valid and consequently the investigation made pursuant thereto is of no legal consequence, they are accordingly quashed. 2. The High Court's judgment under challenge insofar as it relates to quashing of Crime No. 268/97 of Kuthuparamba Police Station against the A.S.P. (R.A. Chandrasekhar) is upheld; in all other aspects the impugned judgment of the High Court shall stand set aside. 3. Criminal Appeal No. of 2001 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1522/2000) and Civil Appeal No. 4066 of 2001 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 8840/2000) filed by the appellants (T.T. Antony and Damodaran P. and Ors. respectively) are allowed. 4. Criminal Appeal Nos. 690-691 of 2001 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 2724-25/2000) filed by the State of Kerala are dismissed.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!)

What is the validity of registering a second FIR under S.154 Cr.P.C. based on a government letter directing investigation, and can it form the basis of a fresh investigation?

What is the effect and binding nature of the Commission of Inquiry report on investigations and on courts?

Whether a fresh investigation by a different agency (e.g., CBI) is warranted in light of the Commission of Inquiry findings and the prior investigations?

Judgment :-

Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J.

1. Leave is granted in all the Special Leave Petitions.

2. These four appeals arise out of the common judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in W.A. Nos. 2708/1999,2709/1999,2710/1999,8/2000,52/2000 and 200/2000 dated February 29, 2000. Criminal Appeal No. 689 of 2001 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1522/2000) is filed by T.T. Antony, Deputy Collector and Executive Magistrate, Kannur; Civil Appeal No. 4066 of 2001 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 8840/2000) is filed by fourteen police constables; and Criminal Appeal Nos. 690-691 of 2001 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 2724-25/2000) are filed by the State of Kerala. These appeals relate to the same incident and raise common questions of facts and laws so they are being dealt with together.

3. The relevant facts, giving rise to these appeals, which have a strong political backdrop, need to be noticed for appreciating the contentions of the parties.

4. The Communist Party of India (Marxist), C.P.I.(M), is said to have a strong hold in Kannur District of the State of Kerala. One Mr. M.V. Raghavan who was once a comrade-in-arms in CPI (M) and was its MLA for over 15 years, broke away from that party and formed a new party -'The Communist Marxist Party' (CMP). He was elected as an MLA on the ticket of CMP from the Azheekkode Constituency, Kannur District. The CMP became a constituent of United Democratic Front (UDF) which formed the Government and was in power in the State of Kerala during the relevant period. He was a Minister in UDF Government having the portfolio of Co-operation and Ports. This gave rise to retribution in the rank and file of CPI(M) particularly in the youth wing (DYFI) which took upon itself to prevent his visits to Kannur District. In January 1993 during his visit to Azhikal (Kannur District) a few country-made bombs were hurled on him. In view of that incident, the then Government ordered elaborate security arrangements for all his visits to Kannur District. It appears, much against the advice of the district administration, the Minister finalised his visit, for inauguration of the 'evening branch of the Co-operative Urban Bank' in the Alakkandy Complex at Kuthuparamba - Tellicherry Road (Kannur District) on November 25, 1994. Far from being auspicious, it turned out to be an ill-starred day not only for the victims of police excesses and their families but also for the public and the public authorities as five persons died and six persons were injured in the police firing purportedly resorted for the protection of the Minister and of public and private properties. In the melee which preceded the police firing more than hundred persons suffered injuries in the lathi charge and a few police personnel also sustained injuries.

5. The police opened fire at two places - (i) in the proximity of the town hall on the orders of the Executive Magistrate and the Deputy Superintendent of Police and (ii) in the vicinity of police station, Kuthuparamba on the orders of the Superintendent of Police. In respect of the occurrence near the town hall, the Assistant Superintendent of Police of Thalassery registered Crime No. 353/94 of Kuthuparamba Police Station under S.143,147,148, 332, 353, 324, 307 read with S.149 IPC, S.3(2)(e) of P.D.P.P. Act and S.3 and 5 of Explosive Substances Act against eight named and many other unidentifiable persons belonging to CPI(M) including the President of DYFI. In regard to the occurrence in the vicinity of the police station, the Superintendent of Police registered Crime No. 354/94 of Kuthuparamba Police Station under S.143, 147, 148, 427, 307 read with S.149 IPC and S.3(2)(e) of P.D.P.P. Act against unidentifiable persons of CPI(M) for forming an unlawful assembly. Both the said crimes were registered on the date of the incident - on November 25, 1994. On that day itself the Executive Magistrate submitted a report to the District Collector who in turn informed the Commissioner and

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2001 Supreme(Ker) 301

What is the validity of registering a second FIR under S.154 Cr.P.C. based on a government letter directing investigation, and can it form the basis of a fresh investigation?

What is the effect and binding nature of the Commission of Inquiry report on investigations and on courts?

Whether a fresh investigation by a different agency (e.g., CBI) is warranted in light of the Commission of Inquiry findings and the prior investigations?

Cases Referred (3)