Limitation Period For Specific Performance Starts From Date Of Refusal If No Fixed Date Stipulated In Agreement: Karnataka High Court Pensionary Benefits Not ‘Pecuniary Advantage’, Cannot Be Deducted From Income For Motor Accident Compensation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Propounder Faces Heavy Burden Of Proof When Testator Is Illiterate; Registration Does Not Cure Unexplained Suspicious Circumstances: Supreme Court Mother Killing Minor Children Over Husband's Refusal To Take Her To Workplace Is Murder, Not Culpable Homicide: Andhra Pradesh High Court Specific Performance Of Registered Agreement To Sell Is No Longer Discretionary Post-2018 Amendment: Allahabad High Court Civil Court Has Jurisdiction To Determine If Tenanted Property Belongs To Joint Family Even If Tenancy Order Stands In Individual Karta's Name: Bombay High Court Notice Under Section 107 BNSS Mandatory Before Attaching Property; Right To Property Is A Constitutional Right: Calcutta High Court Post-Cognizance Arrest 'Makes No Sense' If Investigation Completed Without Arrest: Delhi High Court Grants Bail Under BNSS Criminal Courts Cannot Be Used To Settle Civil Inheritance Disputes Over Appreciated Land Values: Gujarat High Court Quashes Fraud Case Accused Must Raise Probable Defence To Rebut Statutory Presumption Under Section 139 NI Act If Signatures Are Undisputed: Himachal Pradesh High Court Passing Departmental Exam Not A Pre-requisite For Grant Of ACP/MACP Benefits: Jharkhand High Court Convenience Of Family And Accused Paramount For Jail Shifting; Trial Court Can't Reject Application Merely For Non-Residency: J&K High Court Litigants Who Attempt To Pollute The Stream Of Justice With Tainted Hands Are Not Entitled To Any Relief: Karnataka High Court

Two FIRs on the Same Incident Permissible if Allegations Differ: Kerala High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment, the Kerala High Court ruled that the registration of two First Information Reports (FIRs) pertaining to the same incident is permissible if the nature of the allegations differs. The court’s decision came in response to two Criminal Revision Petitions involving allegations of forgery and fraudulent inducement in property transactions.

The High Court, In its observation, emphasized the importance of distinguishing between FIRs based on their content and the individuals filing the complaints. The judgment stated, “The prohibition for a second FIR does not cover a second FIR, allegations of which are different, although relating to the same incident. What is prohibited is any further complaint by the same complainant and others against the same accused subsequent to the registration of the case under the Code, for an investigation in that regard would have already commenced and allowing registration of further complaint would amount to an improvement of the facts mentioned in the original complaint.”

The case Involved two separate complainants and distinct sets of allegations. The first FIR related to impersonation in a property document, while the second FIR involved fraudulent inducement and conspiracy, with different complainants. The court ruled that since the allegations and complainants were different, there was no bar on the second FIR in this case.

Legal experts have hailed the judgment as a clarification of the scope of revisional jurisdiction and a delineation of the concept of “sameness” in FIRs. It reinforces the principle that multiple FIRs on the same incident are prohibited only when they relate to identical allegations by the same complainant against the same accused.

The decision aligns with previous Supreme Court rulings and establishes a clear precedent for cases involving multiple FIRs based on distinct allegations. This judgment reaffirms the principle that the nature of the allegations and the complainants involved are crucial factors in determining the permissibility of multiple FIRs.

Date of Decision: December 1, 2023.

M.Mohammed Kunhi  VS  State Of Kerala

Latest Legal News