IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
K. BABU, J.
Muhammed Shiraz @ Shiraz S/o Muhammed Haneefa – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Kerala – Respondent
W.P. (Crl.) No. 275 of 2023
Decided On : 02-05-2023
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 376, 376(2)(n), 450, 376(3), 366A r/w Section 34 - POCSO Act - Section 4(2) r/w Section 3(a), Section 5(l) r/w Section 6, Section 8 r/w Section 7, Section 9(l) r/w Section 10, Section 11(iv) r/w Section 12, Section 16 r/w Section 17 - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act - Section 75 - Constitution of India , 1950 - Article 21 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 154, 157, 156 - Kerala Police Act - Section 57 - Seeks quash - Offence of Rape - Police to attempt to locate missing persons - Police Officer has the power to investigate a cognizable offence - Whether FIR registered under Section 57 of Kerala Police Act satisfies requirements of Section 154 Cr.P.C. or is there any investigation on registration of FIR under Section 57 of K.P. Act as provided in Section 156 Cr.P.C. and subsequent provisions in the Code - It is quite possible that more than one piece of information may be given to Police Officer-in-charge of police station in respect of same incident involving one or more cognizable offences and in such cases, he need not enter each piece of information in Diary.
Findings of the Court:
During the inquiry as contemplated under Section 57 of K.P. Act, it is also his responsibility to register an FIR satisfying requirements of Section 154 Cr.P.C. if he receives any information relating to the commission of any cognizable offence - It is the submission of the learned counsel for petitioner that the Investigating Officer was not entitled to register a subsequent FIR after the registration of the FIR under Section 57 of K.P. Act. It is further submitted that he should have converted the FIR under Section 57 of the K.P. Act, adding the penal provisions and proceeded with the investigation.
Result: W.P. (Crl.) dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
K. BABU, J.
1. The petitioner in this Writ Petition (Crl.), filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, essentially seeks to quash Ext.P1 FIR No. 775/2021 of Aranmula Police Station, ExtP2 final report and all further proceedings in S.C. No. 463 of 2021 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court-I (POCSO Special Court), Pathanamthitta. The petitioner is accused No. 3 in the Sessions Case. He, along with the other accused, faces charges under Sections 376, 376(2)(n), 450, 376(3), 366A r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 4(2) r/w Section 3(a), Section 5(l) r/w Section 6, Section 8 r/w Section 7, Section 9(l) r/w Section 10, Section 11(iv) r/w Section 12, Section 16 r/w Section 17 of the POCSO Act and Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act.
FACTS:
2. The victim, a 14-year-old girl, was found missing on 28.7.2021. She was residing with her mother and stepfather. The stepfather, on 29.7.2021, reported the missing of child before the Police. In the information before the Police, the stepfather of the victim reported that when he came back from his place of work and enquired about the victim, his wife told him that she fell in love with a young man and she had gone with him on a scooter to introduce herself to his parents. Based on this information, the Police registered FIR No. 772/2021 under Section 57 of the Kerala Police Act (for short “the K.P. Act”). The Police conducted an inquiry as provided in Section 57 of the K.P. Act. The Police later found the child at her residence. The child was taken to the Women’s Cell at Pathanamthitta and brought to the Counselling Centre. The Counsellor attached to the Centre recorded her statement revealing that she was taken to a residence where the petitioner herein sexually assaulted her.
2.1. Based on the statement of the victim, the Police registered FIR No. 775/2021 on 29.7.2021 itself, alleging offences under Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and Sections 7, 8, 9(1) and 10 of the POCSO Act. The Police also submitted a closure report in Crime No. 772/2021, registered under Section 57 of the K.P. Act, before the jurisdictional Magistrate which accepted the same.
2.2. After completing the investigation in FIR No. 775/2021, the Police submitted final report alleging offences punishable under Sections 376, 376(2)(n), 450, 376, 376(3), 366-A r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 4(2) r/w Section 3(a), Section 5(l) r/w Section 6, Section 8 r/w Section 7, Section 9(l) r/w Section 10, Section 11(iv) and (vi) r/w Section 12, Section 16 r/w Section 17 of the POCSO Act,2012 and Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act.
3. Heard Sri. Manu Ramachandran, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that registration of FIR No. 775/2021 after the closure of FIR No. 772/2021 violates the principles declared by the Apex Court in T.T. Antony vs. State of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC 181 and Krishna Lal Chawla and Others vs. State of U.P. and Another, (2021) 5 SCC 435. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that after having registered FIR No. 772/2021 based on the information given by the stepfather of the victim, there could not be a second FIR. The learned counsel submitted that a second FIR in respect of an offence or different offences committed in the course of the same transaction is impermissible and violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor, per contra, contended that registration of FIR under Section 57 of the K.P. Act was only to locate the missing person, and the same cannot be treated as an FIR under Section 154 Cr.P.C.
6. As per Section 154 Cr.P.C. every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direc
Krishna Lal Chawla and Others vs. State of U.P. and Another
Nirmal Singh Kahlon vs. State of Punjab
Ram Lal Narang vs. State (Delhi Administration)
Rameshchandra Nandlal Parikh vs. State of Gujarat
When earliest or first information satisfies requirements of Section 154 Cr.P.C. there can be no second FIR.
A second FIR with respect to the same offence/occurrence/incident is not maintainable and constitutes an abuse of the process of law.
Abuse of Process of Law - Multiple FIRs for Same Occurrence
The police are mandated to register an FIR when information discloses a cognizable offense, without questioning the reliability of the information at that stage.
Registration of a second FIR for the same incident under SC/ST (POA) Act is impermissible.
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.