Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
Subodh Abhyankar
Rahul – Appellant
Versus
State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
ORDER :
Subodh Abhyankar, J.
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR lodged at Crime No.105/2021 dated 19/03/2021, at Police Station Manak Chauk, Ratlam (M.P.) under Section 489-A, 489-C and 489-D of IPC.
2. In brief, the facts of the case are that the aforesaid FIR has been lodged by the complainant Sub Inspector Ayyub Khan, alleging that on 18/03/2021, he came to know through social media that Rahul S/o Krishnagopal Kasera and his wife Megha have been apprehended by the Bhuj Police (Gujrat) at police station Bhuj, for possessing fake currency notes, and he came to know through his source that both these persons were the residents of Kasera Bazar, Ratlam (M.P.), hence, he proceeded to search their house, and found incriminating material including HP printer, a laptop, pen-drive etc. as also 14 currency notes of denomination Rs.2,000/- and 14 notes of denomination Rs.500/- which were fake. Thus, the case was registered against these two persons at Ratlam at Crime No. 105/2021, who were already arrested by the Bhuj police in connection with Crime No.
3. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the FIR is liable to be qua
Continuation of proceedings based on the same allegations in different jurisdictions constitutes double jeopardy, violating constitutional protections.
Multiple FIRs arising from distinct allegations are permissible under the law, and quashing is not warranted if separate offences are disclosed.
The court ruled that distinct allegations in a second FIR, even involving some overlap with a prior complaint, do not invalidate the subsequent investigation process, affirming the principle of judic....
Point of law: scope of doctrine of double jeopardy, observing that “in order to attract the provisions of Article 20(2) of the Constitution, there must have been both prosecution and punishment in re....
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.
Permissibility of second FIR and application of 'test of sameness' to determine if the FIRs relate to the same incident or transaction.
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 informati....
A second FIR is permissible if it involves distinct offences or new facts, as established in T. T. Antony v. State, maintaining legal integrity in criminal investigations.
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
