The
validity of registration of the second FIR against same person in respect of
same case was decided by the Supreme Court.
The
Appellants lodged the FIR No. 274 of 2012 against four accused persons alleging
that they had prepared fake and fraudulent documents. The second FIR came to be
registered on the basis of the direction issued by the learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate in exercise of power under Section 156(3) of the Code at
the instance of another person alleging, inter alia, that he was neither
present in the meetings nor had he signed any of the resolutions of the
meetings and the accused persons, five in number, including the Appellant No. 1
herein, had fabricated documents and filed the same before the competent
authority. FIR No. 442 of 2012 (which gave rise to Crime No. 491 of 2012) was
registered because of an order passed by the learned Magistrate. Be it noted,
the complaint was filed by another member of the Governing Body of the Society
and the allegation was that the accused persons, twelve in numbers, had entered
into a conspiracy and prepared forged documents relating to the meetings held
on different dates.
The
Hon’ble Judges, in Surender Kaushik and others Vs State of Uttar
Pradesh and others observed:
The
lodgment of two FIRs is not permissible in respect of one and the same
incident. The concept of sameness has been given a restricted meaning. It does
not encompass filing of a counter FIR relating to the same or connected
cognizable offence. What is prohibited is any further complaint by the same
complainant and others against the same accused subsequent to the registration
of the case under the Code, for an investigation in that regard would have
already commenced and allowing registration of further complaint would amount
to an improvement of the facts mentioned in the original complaint.
If
the involvement of the number of accused persons and the nature of the
allegations are scrutinized, it becomes crystal clear that every FIR has a
different spectrum. The allegations made are distinct and separate. It may be
regarded as a counter complaint and cannot be stated that an effort has been
made to improve the allegations that find place in the first FIR. It is
impossible to say that the principle of sameness gets attracted. If the said
principle is made applicable to the case at hand and the investigation is
scuttled by quashing the FIRs, the complainants in the other two FIRs would be
deprived of justice. The Appellants have lodged the FIR making the allegations
against certain persons, but that does not debar the other aggrieved persons to
move the court for direction of registration of an FIR as there have been other
accused persons including the complainant in the first FIR involved in the
forgery and fabrication of documents and getting benefits from the statutory
authority. The Hon’ble Court concludes and held that the second FIR is
recognised and will not be quashed.
Prepared
by: S. Hemanth
Advocate
at Hemanth & Associates
