2021 (9) TMI 1549 - HC - Indian Laws

Multiple FIRs for the same incident - multiple FIR registered with respect to a incident of fire that was stoked in single dwelling - HELD THAT - All the FIR s state that the incident took place a single date i.e. 24.2.2020. All the FIR s state that monetary loss was caused to each of the complainants residing in parts of the buildings in the same compound and in the immediate neighborhood as their belongings and other valuables had been burnt down. Lalit Kumar the complainant in FIR No.113/2020 has stated that the premises was his ancestral property and had been divided into four portions pursuant to a family arrangement. The FIR s state that the arson was extinguished by the same Fire Brigade bearing unique number- 926225. Furthermore the charge-sheet containing the site plan shows that all the properties are part of the same premises or they are in very close proximity with one another. A careful perusal of the site map of the incident reproduced hereinabove shows that on 24.02.2020 a mob entered the compound where the properties are situated ransacked it and set it ablaze. It may be so that the properties are different or distinct from one another but are located in one compound. It is also to be noted that most of the houses in the said compound belong to the same family and were owned by different members of the family after being divided by their forefathers. In T.T. ANTONY VERSUS STATE OF KERALA AND ORS. 2001 (7) TMI 1322 - SUPREME COURT the Supreme Court has held a case of fresh investigation based on the second or successive FIRs not being a counter case filed in connection with the same or connected cognizable offence alleged to have been committed in the course of the same transaction and in respect of which pursuant to the first FIR either investigation is underway or final report under Section 173(2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate may be a fit case for exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or under Article 226/227 of the Constitution. The law on the subject has been settled keeping in line with the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court of India. There can be no second FIR and no fresh investigation in respect of the same cognizable offence or same occurrence giving rise to one or more cognizable offences. In the present case it cannot be said that the incidents were separate or the offences are different. As stated earlier a perusal of the charge-sheets filed in the respective FIRs show that they are more or less identical and the accused are also same. However if there is any material that has been found against the accused the same can be placed on record in FIR No.106/2020. Save FIR No. 106/2020 registered on 01.03.2020 at Police Station Jaffrabad FIR No. 107/2020 FIR No.112/2020 FIR No. 113/2020 and FIR No.132/2020 all registered at Police Station Jaffrabad and all proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed and set aside - Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of multiple FIRs for the same incident.
2. Applicability of the principles laid down in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala regarding multiple FIRs.

Summary:

Issue 1: Quashing of multiple FIRs for the same incident

CRL.M.C. 1197/2021, CRL.M.C. 1198/2021, CRL.M.C. 1230/2021, and CRL.M.C. 1233/2021 were filed for quashing FIR Nos. 112/2020, 132/2020, 107/2020, and 113/2020 respectively, all registered at Police Station Jaffrabad for offences u/s 147, 148, 149, 436, and 34 IPC and Sections 3/4 of the PDPP Act. The petitioner argued that all FIRs pertain to the same incident of arson at T-209B, Main Road, Maujpur, and hence, multiple FIRs violate the principles laid down in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, 2001 6 SCC 181, which states that more than one FIR cannot be registered for one offence.

Issue 2: Applicability of T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala

The State contended that the FIRs were filed for distinct properties and different complainants suffered individual damages. However, the court noted that all FIRs were related to the same incident of arson on 24.02.2020, involving the same fire brigade truck, and the properties were part of the same compound. The court referenced T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, which prohibits multiple FIRs for the same incident, and other relevant judgments like Babubhai V. State of Gujarat and Anju Chaudhary V. State of U.P., reinforcing that no second FIR can be registered for the same occurrence.

Judgment:

The court concluded that the FIRs were not for separate incidents but for the same occurrence within one compound. Therefore, registering multiple FIRs was contrary to the law. Consequently, FIR Nos. 107/2020, 112/2020, 113/2020, and 132/2020 and all proceedings emanating therefrom were quashed, leaving only FIR No. 106/2020 to stand. The petitions were disposed of accordingly.