2012 (12) TMI 1129 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether there can be more than one FIR in relation to the same incident or different incidents arising from the same occurrence? - Held that - It is true that law recognizes common trial or a common FIR being registered for one series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction as contemplated under Section 220 of the Code. There cannot be any straight jacket formula, but this question has to be answered on the facts of each case. This Court in the case of Mohan Baitha v. State of Bihar 2001 (3) TMI 1036 - SUPREME COURT , held that the expression same transaction from its very nature is incapable of exact definition. It is not intended to be interpreted in any artificial or technical sense. Common sense in the ordinary use of language must decide whether or not in the very facts of a case, it can be held to be one transaction. It is not possible to enunciate any formula of universal application for the purpose of determining whether two or more acts constitute the same transaction. Such things are to be gathered from the circumstances of a given case indicating proximity of time, unity or proximity of place, continuity of action, commonality of purpose or design. Where two incidents are of different times with involvement of different persons, there is no commonality and the purpose thereof different and they emerge from different circumstances, it will not be possible for the Court to take a view that they form part of the same transaction and therefore, there could be a common FIR or subsequent FIR could not be permitted to be registered or there could be common trial. Similarly, for several offences to be part of the same transaction, the test which has to be applied is whether they are so related to one another in point of purpose or of cause and effect, or as principal and subsidiary, so as to result in one continuous action. Thus, where there is a commonality of purpose or design, where there is a continuity of action, then all those persons involved can be accused of the same or different offences committed in the course of the same transaction .

Issues Involved:
1. Whether there can be more than one FIR in relation to the same incident or different incidents arising from the same occurrence.
2. The legality and correctness of the High Court's order directing the registration of a second FIR.
3. Whether an accused is entitled to a hearing before the registration of an FIR.
4. The powers of the Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

Detailed Analysis:

1. Multiple FIRs for the Same Incident:
The Supreme Court examined whether multiple FIRs can be registered for the same incident or different incidents arising from the same occurrence. It was emphasized that Section 154 of the CrPC mandates that every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence must be recorded by the police. The Court clarified that there cannot be two FIRs for the same offence. However, if the incidents are separate, even if the offences are similar or different, a second FIR can be registered. The Court highlighted the principle akin to double jeopardy, rule of fair investigation, and prevention of abuse of power by the police as safeguards. The Court cited precedents, including *Ram Lal Narang v. State (Delhi Administration)* and *T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala*, to support its conclusion that a second FIR is permissible if it pertains to distinct and different facts.

2. Legality of the High Court's Order:
The High Court had set aside the Chief Judicial Magistrate's order and directed the registration of a fresh FIR based on the application under Section 156(3) CrPC. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, stating that the two FIRs in question related to different occurrences. The first FIR (No. 145/2007) was about the burning of a shop by unknown persons, while the second FIR, based on the complaint by Parvez Parwaz, was about a larger conspiracy and communal violence incited by certain individuals. The Court found that these were distinct incidents with different perpetrators and purposes, thus justifying separate FIRs.

3. Right to Hearing Before FIR Registration:
The Court addressed whether an accused is entitled to a hearing before the registration of an FIR. It concluded that the CrPC does not provide for such a right. The registration of an FIR is a statutory duty of the police officer, and requiring a pre-registration hearing would frustrate the purpose of fair investigation. The Court referenced *Union of India v. W.N. Chadha* and *Samaj Parivartan Samuday v. State of Karnataka* to support its view that the scheme of the CrPC excludes the application of audi alteram partem (right to be heard) at the FIR registration stage. The Court emphasized that the suspect's rights are protected through provisions for bail and anticipatory bail post-registration.

4. Magistrate's Powers Under Section 156(3) CrPC:
The Court elaborated on the Magistrate's powers under Section 156(3) CrPC, which allows the Magistrate to order an investigation before taking cognizance of an offence. The Magistrate's role is to direct the police to investigate when a cognizable offence is disclosed. The Court differentiated between the powers under Sections 156(3) and 202 CrPC, noting that Section 156(3) applies before cognizance is taken, while Section 202 applies after. The Court upheld the High Court's direction for the Magistrate to pass a fresh order under Section 156(3), as the initial rejection was based on an incorrect legal assumption that a second FIR could not be registered.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's order for the registration of a second FIR and clarifying the legal principles regarding multiple FIRs, the right to hearing before FIR registration, and the Magistrate's powers under Section 156(3) CrPC.

← Previous Next →