A Second FIR is Not Barred If Offences Under Two Different Laws Are Distinct: Gujarat High Court

Double Jeopardy Under Article 20(2) Does Not Apply to Separate Prosecutions for Different Offences - Gujarat High Court, in a significant ruling, has held that the registration of a second FIR under the Gujarat Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2020, in addition to an earlier FIR under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for the same transaction, does not amount to double jeopardy under Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India.

Justice Niral R. Mehta made it clear that separate prosecutions under distinct statutes with independent legal ingredients are legally permissible. The Court observed, "Merely because two FIRs arise from the same facts does not render the second FIR illegal if the offences belong to different laws with separate elements and consequences."

"A Land Dispute Can Give Rise to Both IPC and Land Grabbing Act Violations" – Court Explains the Legal Distinction

The case stemmed from a long-standing dispute over land bearing Block No. 295, Old Survey No. 328, Sevasi village, Vadodara, which was originally mortgaged to Andhra Bank (now Union Bank of India). Allegations arose that Sobharajsinh Madhavsinh Sindha and others had fabricated documents to fraudulently claim possession of the property.

Initially, an FIR under IPC Sections 406, 420, 427, 447, 465, 467, 468, 471, and 120B was filed on June 17, 2021, at Vadodara Taluka Police Station, accusing the petitioner of criminal conspiracy, cheating, and forgery. Subsequently, following an order from the Collector, Vadodara, another FIR under Sections 3, 4(1), 4(2), and 4(3) of the Gujarat Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2020, and Section 506(2) IPC was lodged on October 14, 2021, accusing the petitioner of illegal land grabbing and criminal intimidation.

The petitioner sought to quash the second FIR, arguing that it violated Article 20(2) of the Constitution and the Supreme Court’s ruling in T.T. Antony vs. State of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC 181, which prohibits multiple FIRs for the same incident.

Rejecting this argument, the Gujarat High Court ruled, "A second FIR is not per se illegal if the legal framework governing the two offences is distinct. A crime under the IPC, such as forgery, cannot preclude prosecution under the Gujarat Land Grabbing Act, which specifically addresses unlawful occupation of land."

"A Special Law Cannot Be Rendered Ineffective Because of an IPC Case" – Court Upholds Separate Jurisdiction for Land Grabbing Act

The Court clarified that the Gujarat Land Grabbing Act provides for a unique legal mechanism, including:

•    A Special Court with Exclusive Jurisdiction, distinct from the Magistrate’s Court that hears IPC offences.
•    A Reverse Burden of Proof, requiring the accused to prove that they did not grab the land illegally.
•    Civil and Criminal Remedies Combined, allowing the rightful owner to seek restitution of possession in addition to criminal prosecution.

Justice Mehta explained, "The very purpose of enacting the Gujarat Land Grabbing Act was to create a distinct legal process to address land encroachments. If every case of land grabbing were treated solely under the IPC, the special statute would be rendered redundant."

"Two Distinct Offences Arising from the Same Facts Can Be Prosecuted Separately" – Court Relies on Supreme Court Precedents

The High Court extensively referred to State of Bombay vs. S.L. Apte, AIR 1961 SC 578, where the Supreme Court ruled that Article 20(2) applies only when two proceedings are for the same offence and not merely for the same act. The judgment also cited Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah vs. CBI, (2013) 6 SCC 348, in which the Supreme Court held that an act can constitute separate offences under different statutes, allowing independent prosecution under each law.

Referring to these precedents, Justice Mehta noted, "When an act is punishable under two different laws, and the elements of the offences are distinct, it does not violate the rule against double jeopardy. The offence of land grabbing under the Gujarat Land Grabbing Act is not the same as the offence of forgery or cheating under the IPC."

The Court also distinguished this case from T.T. Antony, emphasizing that "the prohibition against multiple FIRs applies only when the second FIR is a mere repetition of the first, whereas here, the two FIRs address different legal violations."

"Quashing the FIR Would Undermine the Rights of the Victim" – Court Rejects Petition for Relief
Dismissing the petition, the Court held that allowing the accused to escape liability under the Land Grabbing Act would frustrate the rights of the complainant. Justice Mehta observed, "The accused cannot claim immunity from a special law merely because they are facing charges under the IPC. The complainant’s right to seek justice under the Land Grabbing Act cannot be nullified through procedural technicalities."

The judgment reaffirms the principle that when a special law creates a separate offence with different legal consequences, the accused must face prosecution under both laws if applicable.

Conclusion: A Landmark Ruling Strengthening Legal Action Against Land Encroachments

The Gujarat High Court’s decision is a landmark ruling that upholds the independent enforceability of special laws like the Gujarat Land Grabbing Act. By rejecting the argument that a second FIR is automatically illegal, the Court has reinforced the state’s power to combat land encroachments through dedicated legal mechanisms.

The ruling is expected to have far-reaching implications for cases involving financial fraud, environmental violations, and other regulatory offences where a single act may violate multiple statutes.

With this decision, the Gujarat High Court has sent a clear message: "The legal system cannot allow technical objections to defeat substantive justice. When the legislature enacts a special law to address a specific mischief, its enforcement must not be curtailed by the existence of an IPC case on similar facts."

Date of Decision: February 5, 2025