Lack Of Boundaries In Sale Deed Not Fatal To Title If Plot Number & Parent Title Are Sufficiently Identifiable: Calcutta High Court Terror Perception Of Underworld Justifies Delay In Invoking MCOCA; Purely Civil Disputes Can Metamorphose Into Criminal Offence: Bombay High Court Identical Wills Executed By Spouses On Same Day Not Necessarily 'Mutual Wills' Restricting Power Of Alienation: Delhi High Court Written Notice Not Mandatory For Revoking Permission Under Section 41 Presidency Small Cause Courts Act: Gujarat High Court Wife Cannot Maintain Complaint Against Husband Under Senior Citizens Act; Not Intended For Spousal Disputes: Karnataka High Court Mere Presence At Scene Or Facilitation Without Intent To Aid Crime Does Not Amount To Abetment: Delhi High Court Offences Under IT Act Punishable With 3 Years Imprisonment Are Bailable Under Section 77B: Kerala High Court Grants Pre-Arrest Bail In KCA Data Theft Case Premature Release Can't Be Denied Citing Section 435 CrPC If Sentence Under Central Act Is Already Served: Madras High Court Suppression Of Higher Qualification To Secure Job Reserved For Lower Education Is Foundational Fraud, Sympathy Has No Role: Supreme Court MBBS Admissions | Candidate Using NIOS Marks To Meet 50% Eligibility Cannot Claim State Govt School Quota: Orissa High Court High Court Cannot Exercise Article 227 Power To Strike Off Plaint When Remedy Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC Exists: Madras High Court Section 69 IEA | Onus On Propounder To Lead Secondary Evidence & Remove Suspicious Circumstances If Attesting Witnesses Are Dead: Telangana High Court

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