9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (8) TMI 1308 - SC - Indian LawsFraud and forgery - main ground of challenge by the appellants who were arraigned as accused in the FIR filed by the respondent no.4 was that it was the second FIR based on the same set of facts on which the earlier FIR was registered again at the instance of the respondent no.4 - Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - HELD THAT - The respondent no.4 is the first informant in both the FIRs and the same are based on the same agreement for sale executed on 14th June 2006. The allegation made in both the FIRs is the same. The allegation is that by practising forgery and fraud, the appellant no.1 has sold the subject property to appellant no.2 thereby deceiving the respondent no.4. The second FIR, which is the subject matter of challenge, was registered nearly four years after the first FIR was registered. The challenge to the first FIR is pending before the High Court. If multiple First Information Reports by the same person against the same accused are permitted to be registered in respect of the same set of facts and allegations, it will result in the accused getting entangled in multiple criminal proceedings for the same alleged offence. Therefore, the registration of such multiple FIRs is nothing but abuse of the process of law. Moreover, the act of the registration of such successive FIRs on the same set of facts and allegations at the instance of the same informant will not stand the scrutiny of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. The settled legal position on this behalf has been completely ignored by the High Court. Appeal allowed.
Issues involved:
Challenge to judgment declining to quash FIR based on second FIR; Allegation of fraud and forgery in property sale; Invocation of Section 482 of Cr.P.C.; Registration of multiple FIRs for the same set of facts; Abuse of process of law; Constitutional scrutiny of successive FIRs. Analysis: 1. The petition challenged the judgment of the Allahabad High Court that refused to quash an FIR filed by the respondent against the appellants, citing it as the second FIR based on the same set of facts. The High Court declined to exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court. The main contention was that the registration of the second FIR was an abuse of process of law, as it overlapped with the first FIR and the civil suit filed by the respondent. 2. The background involved an agreement for sale executed in 2006, where the deceased husband of the respondent was the purchaser. Allegations of fraud and forgery arose when the respondent accused the appellants of selling the property to others instead of executing the sale deed as per the agreement. The first FIR was registered in 2015, followed by a second FIR in 2019, both revolving around the same agreement and allegations of deceit. 3. The appellants argued that the registration of the second FIR, four years after the first, against the same accused and based on identical allegations, was unjust and constituted an abuse of the legal process. Citing legal precedents, the appellants contended that allowing multiple FIRs for the same offense would subject the accused to unnecessary legal entanglements, violating their constitutional rights. 4. The Supreme Court, after reviewing both FIRs and considering the facts, concluded that the registration of successive FIRs for the same set of facts was indeed an abuse of the legal process. Emphasizing the potential violation of constitutional rights under Articles 21 and 22, the Court quashed the second FIR, charge sheet, and summoning order, thereby ruling in favor of the appellants and setting aside the impugned judgments. 5. The judgment highlighted the importance of preventing multiple FIRs by the same informant against the same accused for the same offense to avoid legal harassment and uphold constitutional rights. By nullifying the second FIR and related legal actions, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle that the abuse of the legal process through successive FIRs cannot be tolerated, ensuring justice and fairness in criminal proceedings.
|
