Accused Loses Right To Default Bail By Acquiescence If Extension Orders Are Challenged Only After Chargesheet Filing: Supreme Court AP High Court Orders Release Of Vehicle Seized For Mineral Transport Violations Upon Payment Of Penalty, Says Rules Don't Mandate Indefinite Detention Short Time Gap Between 'Last Seen' And Death Clinches Murder Conviction Against Fired Driver: Allahabad High Court Court Must Restore Possession To Dispossessed Party If Ex-Parte Decree Is Set Aside Even If Property Descriptions Differ: Andhra Pradesh High Court Management Cannot Deny Compassionate Appointment Citing Delay If It Failed To Maintain Service Records: Calcutta High Court Long Possession Alone Does Not Establish Tenancy; Burden Of Proof Lies On Person Claiming Status Of Tenant: Bombay High Court Consent Of Minor Immaterial: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction But Acquits Man Of Kidnapping Charges Notional Income Of Minor In Motor Accident Claims Must Be Based On Minimum Wages Of Skilled Workmen: Supreme Court Enhances Compensation To ₹56.8 Lakhs Revenue Records Serve Only Fiscal Purpose, Cannot Be Treated As Proof Of Title To Property: Supreme Court Executing Court Cannot Grant 'Deemed Extension' Of Time For Deposit In Specific Performance Decree: Supreme Court Specific Performance Decree Becomes Inexecutable If Balance Sale Consideration Not Deposited Within Stipulated Time: Supreme Court Supreme Court Protects MSMEs From Closure Over Missing Environmental Clearance If Pollution Boards Were Unaware Of Requirement Industrial Units Operating With Valid PCB Consents Can't Be Closed Merely For Technical Want Of Prior Environmental Clearance: Supreme Court Punishment On Charge Not Framed In Show Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Supreme Court Reduces Doctor's Penalty To Censure Plea Of Acquiescence Cannot Defeat Lawful Title Claim When Encroachment Is Established: Madras High Court Board Of Revenue Can't Quash Unchallenged Orders While Exercising Revisional Jurisdiction: Orissa High Court Penetration To Any Extent Sufficient For Offence Under POCSO Act; Intact Hymen No Bar For Conviction: Meghalaya High Court Expeditious Conclusion Of Summary Force Court Trial Not Arbitrary If Procedure Followed; ITBPF Act Self-Contained: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 23 Rule 1 CPC Doesn't Bar Appeal Filed Prior To Withdrawal Of Earlier Defective Appeal Against Same Order: Madhya Pradesh High Court Appointment Of Receiver Is An 'Extreme Remedy', Cannot Be Ordered Lightly Especially After Decades Of Inaction: Punjab & Haryana 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