The registration of a second FIR for the same incident or transaction is legally impermissible, as it constitutes an abuse of the investigative process. Subsequent complaints relating to the same occurrence must be treated as statements under Section 162 of the Cr.P.C. for the original investigation.

to Quash the proceedings in FIR No. 170 of 2022 of Machavaram Police Station, Vijayawada City, Krishna District and pass

The Court made the following:

ORDER:

The Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity, “the Cr.P.C.”)/Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, “the BNSS”), seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Crime No. 170 of 2022 of Machavaram Police Station, Vijayawada, Krishna District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 328 and 115 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity, “the I.P.C.”).

On 11.03.2022, one Boosi Akkamma lodged a report, which was registered as a case in Crime No. 99 of 2022 under the head “man missing.” The missing person was Boosi Sudhakar, who is the son of the said Boosi Akkamma.

On 07.05.2022, Respondent No. 2, namely Boosi Prabhakar Babu, lodged a complaint, which was registered as a case in Crime No. 170 of 2022 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 328 and 115 read with Section 120-B of the I.P.C.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the offences alleged in the two FIRs relate to the very same incident and transaction. Placing reliance on the judgment of the High Court of Telangana in Akbaruddin Owaisi v. State of Andhra Pradesh ¹MANU/TL/2544/2022 which in turn relied upon the decision in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala²(2001) 6 SCC 181, it is submitted that registration of a second or subsequent FIRs in respect of the same transactions, whether for the same or different offences, is impermissible and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

It is opposite to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in T.T Antony 2^nd supra wherein at para Nos.27, 28 and 35 it is held that the Court held that while the police have power under Section 173 (8) of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ to conduct further investigation, registering a second or successive FIR in respect of the same incident or transaction is impermissible and amounts to an abuse of the investigative process. Any additional material or findings ought to be incorporated only by seeking leave of the Court and filing a further report in the original FIR, and not by initiating a fresh investigation through a new FIR. Accordingly, the second FIR and the investigation pursuant thereto were quashed, while leaving it open to the investigating agency to seek permission for further investigation in the earlier cases in accordance with law.

It is further relevant to mentioned that the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Arnab Ranjan Goswami v. Union of India ³2020 SCC OnLine SC 462 wherein at para Nos.59 and 61.5 it is held that the Court noted that multiple FIRs and complaints were filed against the Petitioner across several States and Union Territories in respect of the same cause of action. By an interim order dated 24.04.2020, the Hon’ble Apext Court stayed further proceedings in all FIRs and complaints except the one originally registered at Police Station Sadar, Nagpur, which was later transferred to N.M. Joshi Marg Police Station, Mumbai. Accepting the submission of the learned Senior Counsel, the Court held that fairness in the administration of criminal justice warranted exercise of jurisdiction to prevent multiplicity of proceedings. Relying on the law laid down in T.T. Antony supra, the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated that successive FIRs or complaints founded on the same transaction are not maintainable. Consequently, all FIRs and complaints enumerated, except the one under investigation at Mumbai, were quashed.

In Babubhai v. State of Gujarat⁴(2010) 12 SCC 254, at paragraph No.14, the Hon’ble Apex Court, relying on T.T. Antony supra, reiterated that the registration of a second FIR in respect of the same cognizable offence or the same occurrence is legally impermissible, holding that all subsequent information relating to the same i