Registration of a second FIR for the same incident under SC/ST (POA) Act is impermissible.

ORDER

The petitioners, who are accused person 1 to 4 in Crime No.655/2018 of Kottarakkara Police Station filed this Crl.MC under Section 482 of Cr.PC praying for quashing all further proceedings against them including the final report filed in person to the said crime.

2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, with respect to the very same incident, Crime No.111/2018 was registered on 12.01.2018. During the investigation of the above crime, another victim in the same incident filed a private complaint before the Special Court for the Trial of SC/ST(POA) Act, Kottarakkara. The learned Special Judge forwarded the said complaint to the S.H.O under Section 156 (3) Cr.PC and on the basis of the said complaint, S.H.O registered the present Crime No.655/2018 on 14.03.2018. The offences are involved in Crime No.111/2018 are under Sections 341, 323, 294(b)

r/W Section 34 of IPC. However, in Crime No.655/2018, the offence under the provisions of SC/ST (OA) Act, was also included. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that with respect to the very same incident, the second FIR registered by the Police as Crime No.655/2018 is not maintainable.

3. The learned Public Prosecutor argued that since a complaint was forwarded to the S.H.O under Section 156(3) Cr.PC, the Police has no option other than to register a crime and it was in the above context, the second FIR was registered. From the arguments advanced, it reveals that subsequent to the registration of the second FIR, the Police clubbed the first FIR along with the second one, proceeded with investigation and filed a final report, which was received by the learned Special Judge as SC No.1624/2019.

4. Relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ranimol & Others v. State of Kerala and Another [SLP (Crl.) No.2285/2022], the learned counsel for the petitioners would argue that the second FIR registered by the Police on the basis of the very same incident is impermissible.

5. Registration of the second FIR on the very same incident is impermissible in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in T.T.Antony etc v. State of Kerala & Others [ 2001 (5) Supreme 131 ] as well as the decision in Ranimol (supra). If during the investigation it was revealed that the offence under the SC/ST (PAA) Act was also revealed, instead of including the said offence along with the first FIR, a second FIR was registered. The above procedure adopted by the investigating officer is unsustainable in the eyes of law. Since, registration of the second FIR for the very same incident is impermissible, Crime No.655/2018 registered with respect to the very same incident and the final report, which led to SC No.1624/2019 are liable to be quashed by invoking the power of this Court under Section 482 Cr.PC.

In the result, this Crl.M.C is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioners in Crime No.655 of 2018 of Kottarakkara Police Station and in SC.No.1624/2019 of the Special Court for SC/ST (PAA) Act, Kottarakkara are hereby quashed.

Sd/-