Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
M.V. Muralidaran, J.
Jacob John - Appellant
Versus
State Of Manipur & Ors. - Respondents
Cril. Petition No. 8 of 2017
Decided On : 19-01-2022
Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Quashing of FIR - Sections 370(5)/376/34 IPC and Section 6/10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) - [T.T.Antony's Rule of Prohibition Against Second FIR] - [Sections 370(5)/376/34 IPC, Section 6/10 of POCSO Act] - The court discussed the applicability of T.T.Antony's rule of prohibition against the second FIR and its exceptions, emphasizing that successive FIRs for the same incident are permissible if they pertain to different incidents/crimes. The court highlighted the seriousness of the offences and the societal impact, concluding that the petitioner must face trial in two different places.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, running a Children's Home, faced multiple prosecutions in three different States for the same incident. He sought to quash FIR No.23(4)2013, arguing that it was based on the same incident as FIR No.145 of 2013, which was pending in another state. The respondents alleged that the petitioner trafficked children to his Home and sexually assaulted them.
Finding of the Court:
The court rejected the petitioner's plea, stating that the nature of offences in the two FIRs was different, and the petitioner must face trial in two different places. It emphasized the seriousness of the offences and their impact on society, concluding that the FIR and its proceedings should not be quashed.
Issues: The main issue was whether the successive FIRs against the petitioner for the same incident were maintainable, considering the seriousness of the offences and their impact on society.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that successive FIRs for the same incident are permissible if they pertain to different incidents/crimes. It emphasized the seriousness of the offences and their impact on society, concluding that the petitioner must face trial in two different places.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the criminal petition, stating that the impugned FIR and its proceedings do not merit interference, and the petitioner must face trial in two different places.
JUDGMENT
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash FIR Case No.23(4)2013 on the file of the Ukhrul Police Station registered under Sections 370(5)/376/34 IPC and under Section 6/10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) against the petitioner on the ground that for the same incident as stated in FIR Case No.23(4)2013, an FIR No.145 of 2013 was registered by the Mansarovar PS, Jaipur City under Sections 244, 323, 354A, 376 IPC and under Sections 23, 28 of Juvenile Justice Act and Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and under Sections 3/14 of Child Labour Act and under Section 24 of the Orphanages and other Charitable Homes (Supervision and Control) Act, 1960 is pending.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he is Christian by faith and is running a Children's Home in Jaipur in the name and style 'The Father's Children Homes' for both boys and girls separately by giving education, shelter, food etc. to the poor and needy and under privileged children free of costs for more than 13 years, especially from North East. The said Home is a registered Society.
3. On 12.3.2013, the petitioner was arrested by the Mansarovar police in connection with FIR No.145 of 2013 registered under Section 344, 366, 370(5) IPC and under Sections 23 and 28 of Children Protection Act and the petitioner was subsequently released on bail as per the order of the Sessions Judge, Jaipur on 21.3.2013. While enlarging the petitioner, the Sessions Judge, Jaipur observed that the parents of the children gave affidavit stating that they had sent their children with their own will and they were happy that with the help given by the petitioner by giving free education, shelter and food and also parents were allowed to meet and take out for entertainment from time to time. Thereafter, the petitioner was arrested by the Nagaland Police for the same offence in connection with FIR No.6/2013 registered under Sections 344/346/363/376 IPC on the file of Julukei Paren PS. Thereafter, based on the complaint given by the Chairman and Members of Child Welfare Committee, a case was registered in FIR No.23(4)2013 on the file of Ukhrul PS under Sections 370(5)/34 IPC and in the said case the petitioner was arrested and later on released on bail on 12.8.2013. According to the petitioner, by the order dated 2.9.2016, FIR No.6/2013 was quashed by the Gauhati High Court, Kohima Bench on the ground that there can be no successive FIRs in Criminal Revision Petition No.5(K) of 2016.
4. The specific case of the petitioner is that the respondents have collectively subjected the petitioner to multiple prosecutions in three different States emanating from the multiple FIRs registered against him. According to the petitioner, the multiple FIRs against the petitioner report the same alleged offences which are made out from the raid conducted on 12.3.2013 at the orphanages managed by the petitioner in Jaipur. The petitioner filed the instant petition to be secured from the prejudice caused to him in defending multiple trails to prove his innocence. Hence, this petition.
5. Respondents 2 to 4 filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that on 7.4.2013 at 3.40 pm, the Chairman and two other Members of the Child Welfare Committee, Ukhrul jointly lodged a complaint to the Officer-in- Charge of Ukhtul Police Station stating that (1) Nganingmi Vashi, (2) Leishipem Chamroy, (3) Anderson Yangya, (4) Leiyashim Lungleng and (5) Grace Vasha are responsible for illegally taking the rescued children to the Father's Grace Home, Jaipur, Rajasthan and on the basis of the said complaint, an FIR Case being No.23(4)2013 was registered and the investigation proceeded. It is stated that in the course of investigation, one of the accused namely Nganingmi Vashi was arrested and on interrogation, he admitted himself to have committed the offence and stated that the petitioner directed h
Successive FIRs for the same incident are permissible if they pertain to different incidents/crimes, and the seriousness of the offences and their impact on society must be considered in deciding whe....
The court quashed the FIR under Section 420 IPC, finding no cognizable offence and highlighting the violation of natural justice principles in the registration process.
Continuance of criminal proceedings based on improbable allegations constitutes abuse of process of law.
The judgment establishes the principle that filing successive FIRs for the same incident can be an abuse of the process of the court and may warrant the quashing of criminal proceedings.
The defense material must render the allegations redundant for the proceedings to be quashed, and a thorough trial is needed to establish the veracity of the allegations.
The court emphasized that the veracity of defense materials cannot be examined at the stage of quashing the FIR and that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly. It also highlighted that ....
Merely because three separate FIRs have been filed do not mean that they could not be clubbed together and one charge-sheet could not be filed.
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
