SANGEETA CHANDRA, MOHD. FAIZ ALAM KHAN
Pundrik Kumar Pandey Alias Pundrik Pandey – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. We have heard Shri Abhishek Srivastava, counsel for the petitioners at length and the learned A.G.A. who appears for the State-respondents and Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, the counsel appearing for the informant, the sitting MLA of Mahasi Constituency, Bahraich.
2. Since both writ petitions arise out of same F.I.R. they are being dealt with by a common order.
3. It is the case of the petitioner-Pundrik Kumar Pandey @ Pundrik Pandey, that the Opposite party no.4, the sitting MLA has been representing Mahasi Constituency for the past 15 years and the applicant-Pundrik Kumar Pandey @ Pundrik Pandey, was earlier working as a Journalist and he used to write against the Opposite party no.4, as a result whereof the Opposite party no.4 became inimical to the petitioner. The petitioner is currently posted as a Teacher in Government Primary School, U.P.S. Chaugoi, Block-Jamuha, District Shravasti, and the deceased Ram Gopal Mishra was the cousin brother-in-law of the petitioner and for this reason the petitioner went along with the dead body of Ram Gopal Mishra to the Dharna site near the Medical College. He wanted to only accompany the body when it was being taken for post mortem. How
Babubhai Vs. State of Gujarat and others reported in (2010) 12 SCC 254
Ram Lal Narang Vs. State (Delhi Administration) reported in (1979) 2 SCC 322
T.T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala reported in (2001) 6 SCC 181
Upkar Singh Vs. Ved Prakash reported in (2004) 13 SCC 292
Chirra Shivraj Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (2010) 14 SCC 444
C. Muniappan Vs. State of Tamilnadu reported in (2010) 9 SCC 567
Rameshchandra Nandlal Parikh v. State of Gujarat reported in (2006) 1 SCC 732
Nirmal Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab reported in (2009) 1 SCC 441
A second FIR for the same incident is impermissible under law unless it pertains to a different cognizable offence or occurrence.
A second FIR is permissible if it presents a different version of the same incident, allowing for new discoveries to be considered.
Subsequent FIRs may be permissible if they relate to distinct incidents or reveal new findings, even if arising from the same transaction.
Multiple FIRs cannot be registered for the same incident arising from identical accusations against the same parties, highlighting abuse of process and procedural injustice.
A prior inquiry under Section 174 does not constitute an FIR, hence a second FIR can be registered based on new evidence, permitting continued investigation regardless of jurisdictional issues.
The court established that multiple FIRs for the same incident are not permissible, reinforcing the need for a single, comprehensive investigation.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.