UP Land Revenue Act | Map Correction Cannot Be Done By Mechanically Transferring Land To Compensate Deficiency Of Adjoining Plot: Allahabad High Court Civil Court Jurisdiction In Injunction Suit Between Private Parties Not Barred If Title Or Vesting In Panchayat Not In Issue: P&H High Court District Consumer Commission Duty-Bound To Refer Product For Laboratory Analysis When Prayed For; Cannot Dismiss For Want Of Expert Evidence: Punjab State Commission Section 135(3) BNSS | Executive Magistrate Cannot Demand Interim Bond Without Commencing Inquiry; Must Supply Kalandara Material & Follow Madhu Limaye Safeguards: Delhi High Court In Neha Bora Sections 126 & 130 BNSS | Writ Court Cannot Evaluate Sufficiency Of Material At Show-Cause Stage Unless There Is 'Nil Material': Delhi High Court Section 32 Evidence Act | Multiple Dying Declarations Cannot Be Discarded Over Minor Variations If Core Substratum Imputing Fatal Blow Remains Consistent: Allahabad High Court Multiple FIRs Arising From Identical Financial Scheme Can Be Clubbed And Transferred To First FIR Court: Bombay High Court POCSO | Mandating Injury Report Indicating Penetrative Assault For Victim Compensation Violates Article 14, Frustrates Sec 164-A CrPC: Allahabad High Court Section 308 IPC | Premeditation & Requisite Intention Must Be Proved; Single Blow With Stone In Sudden Fight Attracts Section 325 IPC: Delhi High Court Organizing A Book Fair Is A Private Activity And Not A 'Public Function' Amenable To Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226: Calcutta High Court Prior Permission From Education Officer Before Issuing Recruitment Advertisement Is Mandatory, Not An Empty Formality: Bombay High Court Order 41 Rule 5 CPC | Tenant Facing Eviction Decree Liable To Pay Mesne Profits At Market Rate Till Delivery Of Possession: Himachal Pradesh High Court Anticipatory Bail In Matrimonial Disputes | Allegations Of Sexual Misconduct Cannot Be Treated As Automatic Grounds For Custodial Interrogation: Delhi High Court Section 35 BNSS | Notice For Appearance Under Section 35(3) Is Not A Mandatory Precondition For Arrest Under Section 104 Of The Customs Act: Gujarat High Court Section 58 BNSS | 24-Hour Cap Is An Outer Limit, Not A Licence To Detain Accused Until Morning Court Hours: Kerala High Court Section 106 Evidence Act Cannot Fill Gaps In Circumstantial Chain, Last-Seen Theory Fails Without Proximity To Time Of Death: Karnataka High Court Service Law | Procedural Violation In Domestic Inquiry Not Fatal Unless Delinquent Proves Real Prejudice: Bombay High Court Indian Succession Act | Unequal Disposition Or Exclusion Of Legal Heir Does Not Invalidate Will If Due Execution Proved: Madras High Court Civil Services Rules | Seniority Counts From Initial Appointment If Normal Probation Completed Without Extension; Minor Penalty Cannot Depress Rank: High Court Pre-Arrest Bail Under Section 31 DV Act Cannot Be Denied If Accused Had No Notice Of Protection Order: Kerala High Court Section 50 NDPS Act Applies Only To Personal Search, Inapplicable To Search Of Bag Carried By Accused: Himachal Pradesh High Court Railway Rolling Stock Transfers to IRFC Must Be Classified to Determine Sales Tax Liability Under Delhi Sales Tax Act: Delhi High Court No Contributory Negligence Can Be Attributed To Pillion Rider In Road Accident: Karnataka High Court Nasha Mukti Center Cannot Detain Adult Based Merely On Spouse's Consent Without Medical Mandate: Madhya Pradesh High Court Punjab Land Revenue Act | Revenue Officer Must Strictly Adhere To Approved Mode Of Partition Verbatim: Punjab & Haryana High Court Labour Court Can Draw Adverse Inference Against Employer For Non-Production Of Employment Records: P&H High Court Closure Of Evidence | Past Conduct Prior To Deposition Irrelevant For Deciding Plea To Adduce Further Evidence: Orissa High Court Supreme Court's Mandate In 'Mihir Rajesh Shah' On Supplying Written Grounds Of Arrest Applies Prospectively: Punjab & Haryana High Court Allegations Of Forceful Sexual Intercourse Raised After 14 Years Of Marriage Without Complaints Cannot Constitute Cruelty Under Section 13(1)(ia) Hindu Marriage Act: Telangana High Court Punjab Municipal Act | Municipality Alleging Unauthorised Construction Must Prove Violation By Cogent Evidence, Injunction Suit Maintainable Without Sec 49 Notice: P&H High Court Arbitration Act | Limitation To Challenge Award Commences From Date Certified Copy Is Obtained If Signed Copy Not Delivered Under Section 31(5): Madhya Pradesh High Court Pension Regulations | Voluntary Retirement Weightage Cannot Be Claimed By Employees Retired Prematurely Under Regulation 19(1): Telangana High Court Compassionate Appointment Cannot Be Denied Solely Due To Marital Status; Judicial Declaration Operates Retrospectively: Allahabad High Court Transfer Of Female Employees With Infants | Administrative Exigency Must Yield To Constitutional Right Of Motherhood And Child Welfare: Rajasthan High Court Consumer Protection Act | Summary Jurisdiction Cannot Resolve Complex Factual Disputes Requiring Detailed Evidence & Cross-Examination: Punjab State Consumer Commission

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

07 May 2024 2:49 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