Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J
A. Pavadaisamy – Appellant
Versus
Union Territory of Puducherry, Rep. by The Inspector of Police, CBCID Police Station, Puducherry – Respondent
ORDER :
(G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.)
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No. 03 of 2019, registered by the first respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 501(b), 506(i), 509 of the IPC and Section 67 of the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000, r/w Section 34 of IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the second respondent is the president of the Congress Party in the South District. While holding this position, there was a civil dispute between the second respondent and the petitioner concerning a land issue pending before the Civil Court at Pondicherry. The petitioner is alleged to have made several false allegations against the second respondent and his family members in the context of these civil cases, thereby defaming them. While being so, on 28.11.2018, at around 8:00 p.m., two audio recordings (alleged private telephone conversations) between one Pavadaisamy and Shyam were made, in which it was stated that the second respondent had cheated several persons in Pondicherry and had murdered one Prakash by pushing him into a well. That apart, the petitioner is alleged to have made derogatory statements about the second respondent’
The registration of multiple FIRs based on the same set of facts constitutes double jeopardy and is barred by limitation under the Criminal Procedure Code.
The principle of double jeopardy does not apply when separate FIRs are registered for distinct offences occurring at different times and locations.
The court held that multiple FIRs cannot be registered for the same incident under established legal principles, emphasizing prohibitions against successive registrations when based on identical clai....
Continuation of proceedings based on the same allegations in different jurisdictions constitutes double jeopardy, violating constitutional protections.
Permissibility of second FIR and application of 'test of sameness' to determine if the FIRs relate to the same incident or transaction.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to prevent double jeopardy in criminal prosecutions.
Multiple FIRs cannot be registered for the same incident arising from identical accusations against the same parties, highlighting abuse of process and procedural injustice.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
