9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (4) TMI 903 - SC - Indian LawsWhether there can be more than one FIR in relation to the same incident or different incidents arising from the same occurrence - In the instant case, upon CBI s own finding that the offence covered by the Second FIR is part of the same conspiracy and culminated into the same series of acts forming part of the same transaction in which the offence alleged in the first FIR was committed. It is also pointed out that it is the case of the CBI itself before this Court that even the charges will have to be framed jointly and one trial will have to be held as contemplated under Section 220 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the Code ).Finally, it is highlighted that the competent jurisdictional court has already taken cognizance of all the three alleged killings in the chargesheet/challan filed by the CBI in the first FIR itself. HELD THAT - filing of the second FIR and fresh charge sheet is violative of fundamental rights under Article 14, 20 and 21 of the Constitution since the same relate to alleged offence in respect of which an FIR had already been filed and the court has taken cognizance. This Court categorically accepted the CBI s plea that killing of Tulsiram Prajapati is a part of the same series of cognizable offence forming part of the first FIR and in spite of the fact that this Court directed the CBI to take over the investigation and did not grant the relief as prayed, namely, registration of fresh FIR, the present action of CBI filing fresh FIR is contrary to various judicial pronouncements. the second FIR filed by the CBI to be quashed. As a consequence, the charge sheet filed in pursuance of the second FIR, be treated as a supplementary charge sheet in the first FIR.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the second FIR filed by the CBI. 2. Whether the second FIR and the subsequent charge sheet violate the fundamental rights of the petitioner under Articles 14, 20, and 21 of the Constitution. 3. Whether the second FIR should be treated as a supplementary charge sheet to the first FIR. 4. The legal permissibility of filing multiple FIRs for the same or connected incidents. 5. The maintainability of the writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Second FIR Filed by the CBI: The petitioner challenged the second FIR dated 29.04.2011 and the subsequent charge sheet dated 04.09.2012 on the grounds that they were violative of his fundamental rights under Articles 14, 20, and 21 of the Constitution. The petitioner argued that the second FIR was contrary to the directions given by the Supreme Court in the case of Narmada Bai vs. State of Gujarat, where the Court had directed the CBI to investigate the entire conspiracy involving the killings of Sohrabuddin, Kausarbi, and Tulsiram Prajapati as a single transaction. 2. Violation of Fundamental Rights: The petitioner contended that the filing of the second FIR and the subsequent charge sheet violated his fundamental rights under Articles 14, 20, and 21 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court reiterated that under the scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure, only the first information in regard to the commission of a cognizable offence satisfies the requirements of Section 154 of the Code. There can be no second FIR for the same incident or occurrence, and any further information should be treated as part of the first FIR. 3. Treatment of the Second FIR as a Supplementary Charge Sheet: The Supreme Court held that the second FIR dated 29.04.2011 and the subsequent charge sheet dated 04.09.2012 should be treated as a supplementary charge sheet to the first FIR. The Court emphasized that the alleged killing of Tulsiram Prajapati was part of the same conspiracy involving the killings of Sohrabuddin and Kausarbi, and thus, the second FIR was unnecessary. 4. Legal Permissibility of Multiple FIRs: The Supreme Court referred to its previous judgments, including T.T. Anthony vs. State of Kerala, where it was held that filing multiple FIRs for the same incident or occurrence is impermissible and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court reiterated that further investigation based on new information should be conducted under the same FIR, and a supplementary charge sheet should be filed if necessary. 5. Maintainability of the Writ Petition under Article 32: The Supreme Court addressed the maintainability of the writ petition under Article 32, stating that the petitioner was not seeking the quashing of the investigation but rather the quashing of the second FIR and the treatment of the charge sheet as a supplementary charge sheet to the first FIR. The Court found that the petition was maintainable as it involved the violation of fundamental rights. Conclusion: The Supreme Court concluded that the second FIR dated 29.04.2011 and the subsequent charge sheet dated 04.09.2012 were contrary to the directions issued in the Narmada Bai case and violated the fundamental rights of the petitioner under Articles 14, 20, and 21 of the Constitution. The Court quashed the second FIR and directed that the charge sheet filed on 04.09.2012 be treated as a supplementary charge sheet to the first FIR. The writ petition was allowed, and the relief was extended to all persons arrayed as accused in the second FIR.
|
