Back
2019 Supreme(Mad) 997
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
Matchan @ Abubacker Siddik & Others - Appellants
Versus
The State Rep by The Inspector of Police & Another - Respondents
Crl. O.P. Nos. 28802 & 28803 of 2017 & Crl. MP. Nos. 16287 to 16290 of 2017
Decided on : 01-04-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners:I. Abdul Basith, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mohamed Riyaz, Additional Public Prosecutor.
The main legal point established is that there cannot be a second FIR for the same set of allegations, and subsequent information received is always in furtherance of the first FIR.
Headnote:
Abuse of Process of Law - Quashing of Proceedings - Sections 147, 294(b), 504, 506(1) of IPC and Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act - Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah Vs. The Central Bureau of Investigation and anr. - Anju Chaudhary Vs. State of UP and anr.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought to quash the proceedings in C.C.Nos.101 of 2016 and 133 of 2015, which were filed against them for offences under Sections 147, 294(b), 504, 506(1) of IPC and Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act. Multiple FIRs were registered for the same occurrence, leading to the filing of separate charge sheets and final reports.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that multiple FIRs for the same occurrence and allegations were a clear abuse of the process of law, citing relevant judgments from the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
Issues: The issues revolved around the legality of registering multiple FIRs for the same occurrence and whether subsequent information received by the investigating agency could warrant the filing of additional FIRs.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the judgments in Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah and Anju Chaudhary cases to establish that there cannot be a second FIR for the same set of allegations and that subsequent information received is always in furtherance of the first FIR.
Final Decision: Both the Criminal Original Petitions were allowed, and the proceedings in C.C.Nos.101 of 2016 and 133 of 2015 were quashed.
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to call for the records and quash the proceedings as against the petitioners in S.C.No.101 of 2016 pending on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Tiruvarur.
Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to call for the records and quash the proceedings as against the petitioners in S.C.No.133 of 2015 pending on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Tiruvarur.)
1. These petitions have been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.Nos.101 of 2016 and 133 of 2015, respectively, on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Tiruvarur.
2. The petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.28802 of 2017 are arraigned as A1 to A5, A7, A11, A15, A16, A18, A21 and A22 in Crime No.315 of 2013, registered by the first respondent registered for the offences under Sections 147, 294(b), 504 506(1) of IPC and Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act. After completion of investigation, the first respondent filed a final report and the same has been taken cognizance in S.C.No.101 of 2016 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Tiruvarur. The allegations as against the petitioners are that on 09.08.2013, to celebrate Ramzhan festival, the petitioners along with other accused persons were went on rally in their respective bikes. At that time, there was a meeting conducted by the members belonging to the Bharathiya Janatha Party. Therefore, the first respondent diverted them to other route. But the petitioners along with other accused persons distracted the first respondent and other police officials from doing their official duty and also caused damage to the fruit shops, flower shops and other shops and also caused damage to the police vehicles.
3. It is also seen that the first respondent registered an another case as against the petitioners in Crime No.318 of 2018, on receipt of the separate complaint from a shop owner. It is seen that both the complaint registered for the very same set of facts and for the very same allegations. The first respondent also filed separate charge sheet in both the FIR registered as against the petitioners. In fact, the statement recorded from the witnesses under Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C are also one and the same in all the charge sheets. There cannot be even more than one FIR for the very same occurrence and that on the very same set of allegations.
4. Admittedly, the petitioners along with other accused persons were going rally, in order to celebrate their Ramzan festival on 09.08.2013. There was an obstruction by the other party members. Therefore, they were directed to other route and therefore they attacked some of the fruit shops and flower shops. Hence, there cannot be more than one FIR for the said occurrence. The first respondent mechanically registered five cases in Crime Nos. 314 to 318 of 2013, as against the petitioners for the very same occurrence, on receipt of different complaints from the different shop owners. The first respondent also filed final report in all the crime numbers. It is completely violation of the procedure laid down in the Cr.P.C.
5. In this regard, it is relevant to rely upon the judgment reported in (2013) 6 SCC 348 in the case of Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah Vs. The Central Bureau of Investigation and anr., in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held as follows :-
“52. (a) This Court accepting the plea of the CBI in Narmada Bai (supra) that killing of Tulsiram Prajapati is part of the same series of cognizable offence forming part of the first FIR directed the CBI to “take over” the investigation and did not grant the relief prayed for i.e., registration of a fresh FIR. Accordingly, filing of a fresh FIR by the CBI is contrary to various decisions of this Court.
(b) The various provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure clearly show that an officer-in-charge of a police station has to commence investigation as provided in Section 156 or 157 of the Code on the b
