The emphasis of the Apex Court is on the commonality and sameness of the accusations pertaining to the same incident, and the registration of the second FIR would be barred whenever further information relating to the same cognizable offense or occurrence giving rise to one or more cognizable offenses is received.

JUDGMENT :

SUVIR SEHGAL, J.

1. Through the instant petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.0008 dated 04.01.2021 (Annexure P-1), registered for offences under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, at Police Station Naraingarh, District Ambala and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom qua the petitioners in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in “Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah Versus The Central Bureau of Investigation and another” 2013 (2) RCR (Criminal) 819 being violative of Section 220 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and basic principles of criminal jurisprudence.

2. Counsel for the petitioners has urged that the petitioners are facing a trial in FIR No.0043 dated 11.02.2020 (Annexure P-2) lodged for offences under Sections 406, 420, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and offences under Section 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 were added later on, at Police Station, Naraingarh, District Ambala, in which case, after investigation, a final report (Annexure P-4) has been prepared and presented against the petitioners before the trial Court. Counsel submits that the facts of the impugned FIR (Annexure P-1) are part of the same series of facts and transaction and consequently the lodging of the two FIRs in respect of the one and the same incident is not permissible in law. He has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in TT Antony Versus State of Kerala (2001) 6 SCC 181, Krishna Lal Chawla and others Versus State of U.P. and another (2021) AIR SC 1381 and Arnab Ranjan Goswami Vs. Union of India and others (2020) AIR SC 2386, besides the judgment in Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah’s case (supra).

3. The petition has been opposed by the State Counsel. He is assisted by the counsel for the complainants, who have been served with an advance copy of the petition. They supported the registration of FIR (Annexure P-1) contending that the offences are distinct and separate and are based on independent cause of action and there is no infirmity in the registration of the FIR (Annexure P-1). They have sought dismissal of the petition.

4. I have considered the rival submission of the parties.

5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Krishna Lal Chawla’s case has hold as under:-

“6. The grave implications of allowing such misuse may be understood better in light of the following exposition by this Court in Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. CBI & anr, (2013) 6 SCC 348:

“37. This Court has consistently laid down the law on the issue interpreting the Code, that a second FIR in respect of an offence or different offences committed in the course of the same transaction is not only impermissible but it violates Article 21 of the Constitution. In T.T.Antony [(2001) 6 SCC 181 : 2001 SCC (Crl) 1048], this Court has categorically held that registration of second FIR (which is not a cross-case) is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution.” (emphasis supplied)

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 (supra), such an absurd and mischievous interpretation of the provisions of the Cr.P.C. will not stand the test of constitutional scrutiny, and therefore cannot be adopted by us.

7. The implications of such successive FIRs on an individual’s rights under Article 21 of the Constitution has been elaborated further in T.T.Antony (supra):

“27. A just balance between the fundamental rights of the citizens under Articles 19 and 21 of the Cons