A second FIR for the same incident is not maintainable under Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, preventing abuse of legal process.

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

By the Court:- Heard the parties.

2. This Writ Petition (Cr.) has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for issuance of appropriate Writ(s)/Order(s)/Direction(s) for quashing/setting aside the FIR vide Pakur (Town) P.S. Case No.09 of 2024 registered for the offence punishable under Section 379 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE .

3. The brief facts of the case is that Pakur (Town) P.S. Case No.09 of 2024 has been registered, basing upon the written report submitted by the informant of the case, alleging therein that the petitioner used to look after the stone mines and crusher business of the father of the informant. On 21.10.2023 at about 3 to 4 PM, the petitioner committed theft of Rs.1,80,000/- cash and 8 bhar of gold. The informant could not know about the same immediately and after coming to know about the same, the informant filed the written report by suppressing the fact that for the self-same allegation, his father has also earlier filed written report basing upon which Pakur (Town) P.S. Case No.238 of 2023 has been registered, for the offences punishable under Sections 406 , 420, 380, 120B of the INDIAN PENAL CODE .

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as this is the second FIR in respect of the self-same occurrence, hence, this FIR is hit by the provisions of Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case Naresh Sharma & Another vs. The State of Jharkhand passed in W.P. (Cr.) No.200 of 2024 wherein this Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Tarak Das Mukherjee & Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others passed in Criminal Appeal No.1400 of2022, dated 23.08.2022, para-12 of which reads as under:-

“12. If multiple First Information Reports by the same person against the same accused are permitted to be registered in respect of the same set of facts and allegations, it will result in the accused getting entangled in multiple criminal proceedings for the same alleged offence. Therefore, the registration of such multiple FIRs is nothing but abuse of the process of law. Moreover, the act of the registration of such successive FIRs on the same set of facts and allegations at the instance of the same informant will not stand the scrutiny of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. The settled legal position on this behalf has been completely ignored by the High Court.” (Emphasis supplied)

wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled principle of law that if multiple First Informant Reports by the same person against the same accused are permitted to be registered in respect of the same set of facts and allegations, as the same will result in the accused getting entangled in multiple criminal proceedings, for the same alleged offence. In that case, this court also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the Case of T.T. Antony vs. State of Kerala & Others reported in (2001) 6 SCC 181 , para-27 of which reads as under:-

“27. A just balance between the fundamental rights of the citizens under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution and the expansive power of the police to investigate a cognizable offence has to be struck by the court. There cannot be any controversy that subsection (8) of Section 173 CrPC empowers the police to make further investigation, obtain further evidence (both oral and documentary) and forward a further report or reports to the Magistrate. In Narang case [(1979) 2 SCC 322 : 1979 SCC (Cri) 479] it was, however, observed that