Cheque Bounce Cases Should Ordinarily Be Sent To Mediation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Calls For Mediation In NI Act Matters 138 NI Act | Belated Plea Of Forged Signatures Cannot Be Used To Delay Trial: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses Handwriting Expert Sections 332 & 333 IPC | Lawful Discharge Of Duty Must Be Proved, Mere Status As Public Servant Not Enough: Allahabad High Court Bus Conductor Accused of Assaulting Traffic Inspectors Custody With Biological Mother Cannot Ordinarily Be Treated As Illegal Detention: Delhi High Court Refuses Habeas Corpus For Return Of Child To Canada Foreign Custody Orders Must Yield To Welfare Of Child: Delhi High Court Refuses To Enforce Canadian Return Order Through Habeas Corpus Possible Criminal Racket Luring Young Girls Through Self-Proclaimed Peers And Tantriks Must Be Examined: J&K High Court Orders Wider Judicial Scrutiny Nomenclature Cannot Determine Constitutional Entitlement: Supreme Court Strikes Down Exclusion Of ‘Academic Arrangement’ Employees From Regularisation Testimony Of Related Witnesses Cannot Be Discarded Merely For Relationship: Supreme Court Upholds Murder Conviction 149 IPC | Presence In Unlawful Assembly Is Enough For Murder Liability”: Supreme Court Upholds Conviction Directly Recruited Engineers Entitled To Seniority From Date Of Initial Appointment Including Training Period: Supreme Court Section 32 Evidence Act | If There Is Even An Iota Of Suspicion, Dying Declaration Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court Framing A Case On Public Perceptions And Personal Predilections Ends Up In A Mess: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal In Alleged Parricide Arson Case When Oppression Petition Is Pending, Courts Must Ensure The Subject Matter Does Not Disappear Before Adjudication: Supreme Court Orders Status Quo In ₹1000 Crore Redevelopment Dispute Parties Cannot Participate In Arbitration And Later Challenge The Process Only After An Unfavourable Outcome : Supreme Court ICSID Clause Is Only A Fail-Safe Mechanism, Not A Restriction: Supreme Court Upholds Arbitral Tribunal’s Constitution In MCGM Dispute Passive Euthanasia | 'Right To Die With Dignity Is An Intrinsic Facet Of Article 21': Supreme Court Permits Withdrawal Of Life Support Medical Board Must Record Reasons Before Denying Disability Pension To Armed Forces Personnel: Kerala High Court Grants Disability Pension To Air Force Corporal 138 NI Act | Directors Cannot Be Prosecuted If Company Is Not Made Accused: Allahabad High Court Quashes Cheque Bounce Cases Broad Daylight Removal of Goods by Known Creditors Is Not Theft: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Shopkeeper’s Insurance Claim Reservation Cannot Freeze Private Land Forever – Lapse Under Section 127 MRTP Act Operates Automatically: Bombay High Court Dismisses PIL Transfer On Marriage Cannot Defeat Helper’s First Right To Promotion: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Anganwadi Helper’s Promotion Where Accusations Are Prima Facie True, Statutory Bar Under Section 43D(5) UAPA Operates; Bail Cannot Be Granted: Jharkhand High Court Bomb Hurled At Head Of Victim Shows Clear Intention To Kill: Kerala High Court Upholds Life Sentence In Kannur Political Murder Case Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment

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