9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Existence of a Prima Facie Case for FIR Registration 2. Validity of Entertaining a Second FIR Summary: 1. Existence of a Prima Facie Case for FIR Registration: The appellants invoked the jurisdiction u/s 226 of the Constitution to quash FIR No. 442 of 2012 on the grounds that no prima facie case existed. The High Court opined that a prima facie case was disclosed and issued directions for surrender and interim bail based on precedents set by the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in *Amrawati and Anr. v. State of UP* and *Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.* 2. Validity of Entertaining a Second FIR: The appellants contended that a second FIR could not be lodged for the same cause of action and incident, citing *T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala and Ors.*, *Pandurang Chandrakant Mhatre and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra*, and *Babubhai v. State of Gujarat and Ors.* The respondents argued that there is no absolute prohibition in law for lodging a second FIR when allegations are made from different perspectives or by different persons, referencing *Ram Lal Narang v. State (Delhi Administration)* and *Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash and Ors.* The Supreme Court examined the principles laid down in various judgments, noting that the concept of "sameness" does not encompass filing a counter FIR relating to the same or connected cognizable offence. The Court highlighted that rival versions in respect of the same incident can take different shapes, and in such events, the lodgment of two FIRs is permissible. In the present case, the Court found that the allegations in the FIRs were distinct and involved different accused persons. The second FIR was registered based on a direction issued by the Magistrate u/s 156(3) of the Code, and it could be regarded as a counter complaint. The Court concluded that the principle of sameness did not apply, and quashing the FIRs would deprive the complainants of justice. Therefore, the submission that the FIR lodged by the fourth respondent was a second FIR and liable to be quashed was not accepted. Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed, affirming that the second FIR was valid and distinct from the first, and the investigation should proceed.
|
