The prohibition for a second FIR does not cover a second FIR, allegations of which are different although relating to the same incident. The concept of sameness in the context of multiple FIRs has been given a restricted meaning, and the court must examine the facts and circumstances to determine whether both FIRs relate to the same incident or different parts of the same transaction.

ORDER :

1. Sri. U. Raghavan, son of Kannan, Kunnummel, a retired teacher expired on 28.08.2003. He had 22 cents of land comprised in resurvey No. 291/3-C of Balla Village. Sale Deed No. 359 of 2007 alienating the said property was executed on 05.07.2007 in the name of Sri. U. Raghavan. It was in favour of Smt. Gracy Jacob. Her husband is a witness in that document. Subsequently, the said property was alienated in favour of Sri. Muhammed Kunhi. He in turn executed sale deed No. 4673 of 2009 on 30.10.2009 alienating the said 22 cents of land in favour of Sri. V. Hashim. Alleging that Sri. Mohammed Kunhi, knowing fully that the property belonging to Sri. U. Raghavan was got transferred by forging a sale deed by impersonation, he had executed sale deed in favour of Sri. V. Hashim and received an amount of Rs. 22 lakhs. With the said allegations, Sri. V. Hashim filed a complaint before of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Hosdurg alleging offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The complaint was forwarded to the Hosdurg Police Station, which followed an investigation and filing of the final report against all the four persons aforementioned. On taking cognizance, all the four accused were summoned. The accused entered appearance and filed C.M.P. No. 6734 of 2017 seeking discharge. That petition was dismissed by the court below as per the order dated 04.11.2018. The said order is under challenge in these revision petitions.

2. The 4th accused filed Crl. R.P. No. 355 of 2019. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 filed Crl. R.P. No. 379 of 2019. Accused No. 3 is no more.

3. Heard the respective counsel for the petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant.

4. The 1st accused is Smt. Gracy Jacob in favour of whom the first sale deed namely, document No. 359/2007 was executed. Her husband, who attested the sale deed and identified the executant who allegedly impersonated late U. Raghavan, before the registering authority is the 2nd accused. The scribe of the document is the 3rd accused. The 4th accused is Sri. Mohammed Kunhi, who purchased the property from the 1st accused and later alienated in favour of the 2nd Respondent Complainant.

5. On the basis of the final report, case was taken on file as C.C. No. 2260 of 2016. The first witness in the case is the 2nd respondent. The second witness is one Sethunath. He is son of late U. Raghavan. Sri. Sethunath earlier filed a complaint before the court below with the allegation that the accused therein forged document No. 359 of 2007 impersonating his father. From his statement in police report, it is seen that on getting information from the village officer when he approached to remit tax for the property in question he came to know that some other persons approached that office for the payment of tax for the same property, and in his enquiry, he knew creation of document No. 359 of 2007 falsely. His further statement is that he filed a complaint before the Magistrate which was sent for investigation and simultaneously he filed O.S. No. 126 of 2012 before the Sub Court, Hosdurg for getting the said document set aside. The crime registered on the basis of his complaint, Crime No. 865 of 2012 was referred stating it to be ‘civil nature’. It was in the meantime the 2nd respondent filed another complaint before the court below, which ensued an investigation and filing of the present final report.

6. The petitioners along with the 3rd accused filed C.M.P. No. 6737 of 2017 seeking discharge on the ground that having the first FIR relating to the same offences was referred, a second FIR and the investigation are prohibited and illegal. On that ground, the petitioners sought discharge. They contended before the court below that the proceedings initiated on the basis of a second F.I.R. as illegal and in that regard they placed reliance on the decision in Mathew