Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Government Can't Deny Implied Surrender After Refusing to Accept Possession: Madras HC Clarifies Scope of Section 111(f) of TP Act Custodial Interrogation Must Prevail Over Pre-Arrest Comfort in Hate Speech Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail for Provocative Remarks Against Migrants Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Cruelty Must Be Grave and Proven – Mere Allegations of Disobedience or Demand for Separate Residence Don’t Justify Divorce: Jharkhand High Court Rejects Husband’s Divorce Appeal Retaliatory Prosecution Cannot Override Liberty: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in PMLA Case Post CBI Trap of ED Officer Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal Findings of Fact Cannot Be Re-Appreciated in an Appeal Under Section 10F Companies Act: Madras High Court Equality Is Not A Mechanical Formula, But A Human Commitment: P&H High Court Grants Visually Impaired Mali Retrospective Promotions With Full Benefits Orissa High Court Rules Notice for No Confidence Motion Must Include Both Requisition and Resolution – Provision Held Mandatory Ashramam Built on Private Land, Managed by Family – Not a Public Religious Institution: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Endowments Notification Cruelty Must Be Proved, Not Presumed: Gujarat High Court Acquits Deceased Husband In 498A Case After 22 Years Trade Dress Protection Goes Beyond Labels: Calcutta High Court Affirms Injunction Over Coconut Oil Packaging Mimicry Mere Filing of Income Tax Returns Does Not Exonerate the Accused: Madras High Court Refuses Discharge to Wife of Public Servant in ₹2 Crore DA Case

Multiple FIRs by same informant against same accused on same allegations Infringement of Art.21, Supreme Court rules

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Supreme Court stated that it is improper for the same person to file repeated FIRs against the same accused based on the same set of circumstances and cause of action.

Apex Court held that that the act of filing successive FIRs based on the same facts and accusations at the same informant's request "would not survive the scrutiny of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India."

Apex court further observed that if it is authorized, it will lead to the accused becoming involved in multiple criminal processes for the same alleged offence. The judge further stated that filing so many FIRs was an abuse of the legal system.

In this instance, the accused went to the Allahabad High Court to ask for the second FIR to be dismissed on the grounds that the first and second FIRs were founded on the same facts and legal theory. It was argued that the filing of a second FIR constituted a flagrant violation of the legal system. The petition was denied by the High Court.

The Apex Court bench remarked in the appeal that the allegations in the second FIR are essentially the same as those in the first FIR. The same real estate is the focus of both FIRs. An agreement for sale is also mentioned in the second FIR. The date of the agreement is listed in the first FIR as being on June 14, 2006, whereas it is mentioned in the second FIR as being on June 21, 2006. This is the sole change between the two FIRs. The second FIR makes similar accusations about alleged violations of IPC Sections 419, 420, 406, 467, 468, and 471. The bench additionally noted that the High Court is still considering the first FIR's challenge.

The bench noted the following while granting the appeal seeking to have the second FIR and the charge sheet based on said FIR quashed:

Tarak Dash Mukharjee vs State of Uttar Pradesh  

Latest Legal News