The Supreme Court while dealing with the question that whether the registration of the subsequent FIR is legally permissible and whether the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash the second FIR has laid down various principles regarding the permissibility of second FIR.
The Apex Court was dealing with an Appeal preferred by the State of Rajasthan against the judgment passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur whereby the respondents prayer for quashing of subsequent FIR was allowed. The case of the respondent before the High court in a petition under 482 CrPC for seeking Quashment of subsequent FIR was inter-alia on the following grounds:-
(a) No fresh incident is disclosed by the second FIR. If fresh information comes to light, it is submitted even after the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. has been submitted, the course to be adopted is not a fresh FIR but further investigation after due permission and then the filing of a supplementary report.
(b) The filing of a second FIR in respect of the allegations that are connected to previous allegations, for which an FIR already stands registered, would be irregular and deserves to be quashed. Reliance is placed on Babu Bhai v. State of Gujarat. In this judgment, it is submitted that if there are two FIRs in respect of the same transaction, they would have to pass the “test of sameness”. Further reference is made to T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, which records that a second FIR in a case which is not a cross-case, violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
(c) The allegations of the second FIR, it was submitted are an attempt to blow up the allegations of the first FIR.
(d) No sanction stands taken under the Prevention of Corruption Act for proceeding against the respondent.
(e) The FIR and the consequent investigation, are both against the edict of the Legislature and deserve to be quashed.
The arguments of the respondent found favour with the High Court which observed that both the offences are identical in nature and committed within a very short span of time. The second incident which was earlier the subject matter of first FIR could have been investigated in the first FIR itself as one trial of two charges was permissible under the law. It was with this understanding that the the HIgh Court quashed the Second FIR in exercise of powers under section 482 CrPC.
The Court while analyzing the question of whether the registration of second FIR is legally permissible and whether the HIgh Court was correct in exercising its inherent powers in quashing the same has relied upon various judicial precedents in T.T Antony Vs State of Kerela (2001) 6SCC 181, Anju Chaudhary Vs State of U.P (2013) 6 SCC 384 , Kari Chaudhary Vs Sita Devi (2002) 1 SCC 714, Upkar Singh Vs Ved Prakash (2004) 13 SCC 298 and others laid the following principles regarding the permissibility of the registration of Second FIR.
- 1. When the second FIR is counter-complaint or presents a rival version of a set of facts, in reference to which an earlier FIR already stands registered.
2. When the ambit of the two FIRs is different even though they may arise from the same set of circumstances.
3. When investigation and/or other avenues reveal the earlier FIR or set of facts to be part of a larger conspiracy.
4. When investigation and/or persons related to the incident bring to the light hitherto unknown facts or circumstances.
5. Where the incident is separate; offences are similar or different.
