The registration of a second FIR for the same incident and same offence is legally impermissible as it constitutes an abuse of process of law and violates Article 21 of the Constitution, provided the first FIR/complaint covered the same transaction.

Order

28/04/2026 Reportable

1. The instant misc. petition is listed before this Court in pursuance of the directions issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vijay Kumar and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan (Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 773/2026, decided on 15.01.2026), wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that in various matters, interim orders have been passed in criminal revision petitions and petitions filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., as a result of which trial relating to serious offences such as murder, rape, dacoity, dowry death, etc., could not proceed and remained stalled/held up due to the passage of considerable time.

2. Directions have been issued to this Court and other High Courts to take up such like matters which are pending since long, on priority and decide the same expeditiously without deferring the hearings to subsequent dates.

3. Since common question of law and facts are involved in both the instant petitions and since these petitions have been submitted against the very same impugned FIR No. 365/2020, registered with the Police Station Jawahar Circle, District Jaipur City (East) for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 323, 341 & 384 IPC, therefore, with the consent of counsel for both the sides, final arguments have been heard together and these miscellaneous petitions are being decided by this common order.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the prosecutrix, i.e. respondent No.2 ‘AG’ is a major lady. She came in touch with the petitioner Yashraj Bhardwaj in the year 2018 and thereafter, they started residing together in a ‘live-in-relationship’ from 2018 to 2019. Counsel further submits that on account of some dispute between the parties, the prosecutrix ‘AG’ filed a complaint under Section 190 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner Yashraj Bhardwaj, for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 384, 323, 342 & 506 IPC before the Court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur on 18.02.2020, wherein, it has been alleged that the petitioner Yashraj Bhardwaj developed physical relationship with the prosecutrix ’AG’ on the pretext of marriage. He further submits that during pendency of the aforesaid complaint, the prosecutrix ‘AG’ again stayed with the petitioner in Hotel Moti Mahal at Pushkar for two days i.e. on 27.02.2020 & 28.02.2020 and this fact is further fortified from the statement of an employee, said to be posted in the said hotel, recorded by the Police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Counsel further submits that the visitors’ register of the said hotel was also handed over to the Investigating Officer which indicates that the petitioner-Yashraj Bhardwaj and the prosecutrix ‘AG’ checked-in the hotel on 27.02.2020 and checked-out on 28.02.2020. He further submits that the petitioner-Yashraj Bhardwaj was not aware about filing of the aforesaid complaint by the prosecutrix against him. Thereafter, the impugned FIR was registered by the prosecutrix ‘AG’ with the Police Station Jawahar Circle, District Jaipur City (East) on 17.07.2020 with regard to the same allegations, which have been levelled in the aforementioned complaint filed by her against the petitioner-Yashraj Bhardwaj under Section 190 Cr.P.C. before the Court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur.

5. Learned counsel further submits that in the meantime, the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, while exercising the