Second FIRs cannot be registered for the same incident after a discharge, as it constitutes an abuse of process and violates constitutional rights.

ORDER :

A. Badharudeen, J.

Accused No.2 in CC No.27/2015 on the files of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kozhikode, has filed this Criminal Revision Petition, challenging dismissal of discharge petition filed by him in the said case, as per order dated 26.02.2020 in Crl.M.P.No.1/2019.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor, and Adv. Suvin R. Menon, who was appointed as Amicus Curiae by my learned Predecessor to assist this Court. The report filed by the Amicus Curiae was also perused.

3. The facts of this case run as follows:

As on 14.12.2007, FIR No.423/2007 was registered by Mukkam Police, alleging that the accused persons therein, who are the accused in the present crime, committed offences punishable under Sections 120B , 420, 511 of 465, 466, 470 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’ for short) without the junction of public servants. After investigation, Annexure A1 final report was filed, alleging commission of the said offences and when the accused persons appeared before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Thamarassery, as per Annexure A2 order dated 03.03.2011, all the accused persons were discharged by the learned Magistrate by invoking power under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’ for short) on the finding that the materials produced by the prosecution did not disclose prima facie case. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, thereafter, the Vigilance registered VC No.03/2012/KKD on 28.07.2012 and the same led to the filing of Annexure A3 final report, inclusive of the 1^st accused, who is the village man among the accused in the earlier final report. In the final report filed by the Vigilance as on 19.11.2015, the allegation is that the accused persons committed offences punishable under Sections 167 and 120B of IPC as well as under Section 13 (1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the PC Act’ for short)

4. The main challenge raised by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that in respect of every subsequent information of the same occurrence or incident, giving rise to one or more cognizable offences, no 2nd FIR could be registered, and consequently, there should not be any fresh investigation. In this connection, the learned counsel placed decision of the Apex Court in Antony v. State of Kerala , reported in 2001 KHC 655 . In the said decision, in paragraph No.21, the Apex Court held as under:

21. From the above discussion it follows that 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. On receipt of information about a cognizable offence or an incident giving rise to a cognizable offence or offences and on entering the FIR in the station house diary, the officer in charge of a police station has to investigate not merely the cognizable offence reported in the FIR but also other connected offences found to have been committed in the course of the same transaction or the same occurrence and file one or more reports as provided in S.173 of the Cr.P.C.”

5. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, since on the same sets of allegations, investigation was carried out by registering an initial FIR and the same culminated in discharge of the accused, including the revision petitioner, the prosecution of the same accused on the same set of facts as per Annexure A3 final report stemmed from a 2^nd FIR is illegal and unwarranted. Therefore, he deserves di