The registration of a subsequent First Information Report regarding the same incident for which an earlier report exists is prohibited. Multiple criminal complaints by the same party regarding the same substratum of occurrence amount to an abuse of the process of law and are legally impermissible.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard the parties.

2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., 2023 with the prayer to quash the FIR as well as the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Namkum P.S. Case No. 218 of 2023 involving the offences punishable under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code and under Section 3 /4 of D.P. Act pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ranchi.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the investigation of the case is still going on and charge sheet has not yet been submitted. It is next submitted that the prayer of the petitioner be allowed on the ground that this is the second FIR in respect of the selfsame occurrence, in respect of which Ranchi Mahila P.S. Case No. 06 of 2023 has already been registered on 10.04.2023 and there is no allegation of any offence committed by the petitioners by having been taken place after 10.04.2023 and before registration of this FIR vide Namkum P.S. Case No. 218 of 2023 on 05.05.2023.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners by relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Nandlal Saw vs. The State of Jharkhand reported in 2024:JHHC:34532 that therein this Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Krishna Lal Chawla & others v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another reported in (2021) 5 SCC 435 paragraph-10 of which reads as under:-

“10. Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees that the right to life and liberty shall not be taken away except by due process of law. Permitting multiple complaints by the same party in respect of the same incident, whether it involves a cognizable or private complaint offence, will lead to the accused being entangled in numerous criminal proceedings. As such, he would be forced to keep surrendering his liberty and precious time before the police and the courts, as and when required in each case. As this Court has held in Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah [Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. CBI, (2013) 6 SCC 348 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 309] , such an absurd and mischievous interpretation of the provisions of the CrPC will not stand the test of constitutional scrutiny, and therefore cannot be adopted by us.” (Emphasis supplied)

wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled principle of law that permitting multiple complaints by the same party in respect of the same incident, whether it involves a cognizable or private complaint offence, will lead to the accused being entangled in numerous criminal proceedings; which is not the mandate of the law.

5. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in that case, this Court also relied upon the of Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash and Others reported in (2004) 13 SCC 292 paragraph-17 of which reads as under:-

“17. It is clear from the words emphasised hereinabove in the above quotation, this Court in the case of T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala [(2001) 6 SCC 181 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 1048] has not excluded the registration of a complaint in the nature of a counter-case from the purview of the Code. In our opinion, this Court in that case only held that any further complaint by the same complainant or others against the same accused, subsequent to the registration of a case, is prohibited under the Code because an investigation in this regard would have already started and further complaint against the same accused will amount to an improvement on the facts mentioned in the o