Trademark Pirates Face Legal Wrath: Delhi HC Enforces Radio Mirchi’s IP Rights Swiftly Madras High Court Upholds Extended Adjudication Period Under Customs Act Amid Allegations of Systemic Lapses Disputes Over Religious Office Will Be Consolidated for Efficient Adjudication, Holds Karnataka High Court Motive Alone, Without Corroborative Evidence, Insufficient for Conviction : High Court Acquits Accused in 1993 Murder Case Himachal Pradesh HC Criticizes State for Delays: Orders Timely Action on Employee Grievances Calls for Pragmatic Approach to Desertion and Cruelty in Divorce Cases: Calcutta High Court Orders Fresh Trial Juvenile Tried as Adult: Bombay High Court Validates JJB Decision, Modifies Sentence to 7 Years Retrospective Application of Amended Rules for Redeployment Declared Invalid: Orissa High Court NDPS Act Leaves No Room for Leniency: HC Requires Substantial Proof of Innocence for Bail No Protection Without Performance: MP High Court Denies Relief Under Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act Delays in processing applications for premature release cannot deprive convicts of interim relief: Karnataka High Court Grants 90-Day Parole Listing All Appeals Arising From A Common Judgment Before The Same Bench Avoids Contradictory Rulings: Full Bench of the Patna High Court. Age Claims in Borderline Cases Demand Scrutiny: Madhya Pradesh HC on Juvenile Justice Act Bishop Garden Not Available for Partition Due to Legal Quietus on Declaration Suit: Madras High Court Exclusion of Certain Heirs Alone Does Not Make a Will Suspicious: Kerala High Court Upholds Validity of Will Proof of Delivery Was Never Requested, Nor Was it a Payment Precondition: Delhi High Court Held Courier Firm Entitled to Payment Despite Non-Delivery Allegations Widowed Daughter Eligible for Compassionate Appointment under BSNL Scheme: Allahabad High Court Brutality of an Offence Does Not Dispense With Legal Proof: Supreme Court Overturns Life Imprisonment of Two Accused Marumakkathayam Law | Partition Is An Act By Which The Nature Of The Property Is Changed, Reflecting An Alteration In Ownership: Supreme Court Motor Accident Claim | Compensation Must Aim To Restore, As Far As Possible, What Has Been Irretrievably Lost: Supreme Court Awards Rs. 1.02 Crore Personal Criticism Of Judges Or Recording Findings On Their Conduct In Judgments Must Be Avoided: Supreme Court Efficiency In Arbitral Proceedings Is Integral To Effective Dispute Resolution. Courts Must Ensure That Arbitral Processes Reach Their Logical End: Supreme Court Onus Lies On The Propounder To Remove All Suspicious Circumstances Surrounding A Will To The Satisfaction Of The Court: Calcutta High Court Deeds of Gift Not Governed by Section 22-B of Registration Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Testimony Of  Injured Witness Carries A Built-In Guarantee Of Truthfulness: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Conviction for Attempted Murder POCSO | Conviction Cannot Be Sustained Without Conclusive Proof Of Minority - Burden Lies On The Prosecution: Telangana High Court Credible Eyewitness Account, Supported By Forensic Corroboration, Creates An Unassailable Chain Of Proof That Withstands Scrutiny: Punjab and Haryana High Court Jammu & Kashmir High Court Grants Bail to Schizophrenic Mother Accused of Murdering Infant Son

Second FIR an Abuse of Process of Law: Patna High Court Quashes Duplicate Charges in SBI Misappropriation Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a decisive ruling, the Patna High Court quashed orders directing the lodging of a second FIR against Sunil Kumar Srivastava, a senior assistant at the State Bank of India (SBI), Chapra Branch, accused of misappropriation and fraudulent transactions. The judgment, delivered by Justice Chandra Shekhar Jha on May 1, 2024, emphasized the legal prohibition against multiple FIRs for the same incident, underscoring it as an “abuse of the process of law.” The court’s decision relied heavily on key Supreme Court precedents, reinforcing the principle that the integrity of the legal process must be preserved.

The case originated from a complaint filed on February 22, 2013, by Bhola Nath Gupta, the Chief Manager of SBI Chapra Branch, alleging that 14 vouchers were missing, and unauthorized transactions amounting to Rs. 30,00,000 were conducted. The transactions were traced back to the petitioner, Sunil Kumar Srivastava, and co-accused Shyam Sunder Chaudhary. Further complications arose when Om Jee Prasad filed a complaint claiming that Rs. 41,60,000 he handed over to Srivastava for deposit was never credited to the intended account. The first FIR, Chhapra Town P.S. Case No. 52 of 2013, was lodged, investigated, and resulted in a chargesheet exonerating Srivastava. However, a second FIR was later filed based on a similar complaint by Prasad, leading to the current legal challenge.

Credibility of Single FIR Doctrine: The court reiterated the long-established legal doctrine that prohibits the registration of a second FIR for the same occurrence. “There can be no second FIR and consequently no fresh investigation on receipt of every subsequent information in respect of the same cognizable offense or the same occurrence,” Justice Jha cited from the Supreme Court’s interpretation in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala.

Examination of Facts and Allegations: Justice Jha reviewed the details of the case, noting that the original FIR had already comprehensively covered the allegations. The court highlighted that the initial investigation by the police included the complaints made by both Gupta and Prasad, with the chargesheet addressing all pertinent issues.

The judgment emphasized that the registration of a second FIR for the same facts is legally impermissible. “The lodging of this FIR in terms of the impugned order would only amount to misuse of the process of Court of law and is nothing but a malicious prosecution,” Justice Jha asserted. The court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, which outlines the circumstances under which an FIR can be quashed, including instances where the proceedings are initiated with mala fide intentions.

Justice Jha remarked, “The second FIR and subsequent proceedings are an abuse of the process of law,” highlighting the judiciary’s stance against the duplication of legal processes that could undermine the judicial system’s integrity.

The Patna High Court’s ruling to quash the second FIR in the SBI misappropriation case reinforces the judiciary’s dedication to upholding legal principles and preventing the misuse of legal procedures. By adhering to the Supreme Court precedents, this judgment affirms the prohibition against multiple FIRs for the same offense, ensuring the integrity of criminal investigations. The decision is expected to have a significant impact on similar future cases, bolstering the legal framework for addressing criminal complaints.

 Date of Decision: May 1, 2024

Sunil Kumar Srivastava v. The State of Bihar & Others

Similar News