MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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