2026 Supreme(Online)(UK) 1989

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Rakesh Thapliyal, J
Suresh Rathore – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand – Respondent
Criminal Writ Petition No. 96 of 2026 | Criminal Writ Petition No. 1801 of 2025 | Criminal Writ Petition No. 39 of 2026 | Criminal Writ Petition No. 13 of 2026

Multiple FIRs for the same cognizable offence or transaction are impermissible. Subsequent complaints regarding the same incident must be treated as statements during the initial investigation. Additionally, an FIR must be initiated by an aggrieved victim or affected person; complaints by third parties for the same grievance are unsustainable.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 61(2), 248(b), 308(7), 336(4), 351(2), 352, 353(2), 356(3) and 3(5) - Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 - Sections 66D, 66E and 67 - Multiple First Information Reports - Principles of quashing - The law does not permit multiple FIRs for the same occurrence or transaction against the same accused; subsequent FIRs must be treated as statements under the Code of Criminal Procedure/Bharat Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita. (Paras 7, 8, 20, 21)

(B) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of FIR - Locus standi - An FIR must be lodged by a victim or an affected person as defined under the procedural code; complaints by outsiders regarding the same incident where a victim's FIR already exists are unsustainable and liable to be quashed to prevent abuse of the process of law. (Paras 7, 22, 23)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought the quashing of four separate FIRs registered in different police stations involving allegations of social media harassment, defamation, and conspiracy to implicate others in a prior murder case. Multiple informants—some identified as victims and others as third parties—launched nearly identical complaints. The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated, the allegations were identical across multiple FIRs, and some informants lacked the legal standing to initiate criminal proceedings.

Findings of Court:
The Court noted that specific FIRs contained nearly identical allegations to those in a primary complaint filed by the actual victim. Relying on constitutional and supreme court precedents, the Court held that a second or successive FIR is not permissible for the same transaction. Furthermore, the Court maintained that social media should not be weaponized for defamation or spreading malicious content without evidence.

Issues: Whether the registration of multiple FIRs for the same alleged incident is permissible and whether an FIR initiated by an individual who is not a victim or affected party according to the statutory definition can be sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: The court established that in line with established legal principles, once an initial FIR is recorded for an occurrence, any subsequent information constitutes a statement under the investigation provisions rather than a separate FIR. Successive FIRs derived from the same transaction by non-victims constitute an abuse of the legal process and must be quashed.

Result: Some petitions were dismissed, while petitions challenging FIRs filed by non-victims were allowed and the corresponding FIRs quashed.