FIR AND SCOPE OF MULTIPLE FIRS

The term ‘First Information Report’ has not been defined in the Code of Criminal Procedure. Rather the term has not been used except in section 207 which requires the Magistrate to furnish to the accused a copy of the First Information Report recorded under section 154 (1) of the Code. The report first recorded by the police relating to the commission of a cognizable case is the First Information Report giving information on the cognizable crime.

In the State of Rajasthan v. Shiv Singh, the Rajasthan High Court defined a First Information Report as?‘the statement of the maker of the report at a police station before a police officer recorded in the manner provided by the provisions of the Code.’

What Kind of Information is Considered in an F.I.R?

Only information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence can be termed as an FIR. It is not necessary that the information must set out every detail of the case. It need not state the name of the accused also. What is necessary is that it must disclose information regarding the commission of a cognizable offence.

?Information received in the following cases is not considered as FIR:

1. Information received after commencement of the investigation.
2. Telephonic information, unless it has been given by a known person who discloses his identity and the message contains all the necessary facts which constitute an offence and such a message is reduced to writing by S.H.O.
3. Information of mere assemblage of some persons.
4. Indefinite, Vague and un-authorized information.

1. Can Multiple FIRs filled For The Same Offence?

No multiple FIR’s can be registered for the same crime, the Delhi High Court has reiterated while quashing four but one FIR in a case of looting and setting on fire a compound during the North-East Delhi riots in February last year.

“There can be no second FIR and no fresh investigation regarding the same cognisable offence or same occurrence giving rise to one or more cognisable offences”.Justice Subramanium Prasad remarked.

Lodging an FIR is the first step to access justice for the victim. In a landmark case of Lalita Kumar v. Government of U.P(2013), the Supreme court observed:

• Section 154 CrPC is mandatory in nature and the use of the word ‘shall’ in Section 154 CrPC shows the intent and seriousness of the legislature to not allow any discretion to the police officer under it.?
• All the information received under this Section shall be entered in the police register, provided that it must disclose the commission of a cognizable offence.
• The information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence need not be credible or reasonable. It must only disclose the commission of a cognizable offence.
• The police officer cannot embark on a preliminary inquiry before entering the information. However, where the information does not disclose the commission of a cognizable offence, the police can conduct a preliminary inquiry to ascertain information limited to the determination of the same.?
• The preliminary inquiry is permissible in cases of medical negligence, matrimonial disputes, commercial offences, and corruption cases.
• Entering the information along with the signature of the informant in the FIR register is an extremely valuable safeguard since there is no requirement to get permission from the Magistrate to commence an investigation. It safeguards against illegal and mala fide police investigation.?
• The FIR register is different from the general diary (Section 44 of the Police Officer Act, 1861) of the police officers, as was also observed in Madhu Bala vs. Suresh Kumar (1997).

Hence, it can be inferred that an FIR is a vital document both from the point of view of the victim and the accused. However, it is not considered a substantive piece of evidence. It can only be used to prove or disprove the statement under Section 157 or Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, respectively.

An FIR cannot be used as evidence in the trial for corroborating or contradicting the testimonies of the accused or the witnesses as stated in Nasar Ali v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1957).??

. Question must be put before the prosecution/witness?

WHETHER IT WAS A SAME COMPOUND?

-IF PROSECUTION SAYS,YES THEN IT COMES UNDER THE SAME UNIT.

3.? NO SEPERATE INCIDENTS.

In cases where it cannot be said that there was separate incidents and therefore multiple FIR’s cannot be registered for the very same incident as it is contrary to the laws laid down by the Supreme court.

However in case where s Multiple FIR’S has been registered on the same incident to improve the earlier complaint or to harass the accused in the matters.

NOTE- Multiple FIR on the same incident would be hit by the “DOCTRINE OF SAMENESS” AND will have to be annihilated (abolition) as it would amount to improving the facts and the case in the subsequent complaint on the same incident.

Case laws related to issue in question:

1. B. V. Byre Gowda vs Nisar Ahmed on 20 September, 2021

???The case projected by the prosecution is as follows:-

In the year 2018, at the time when elections to the Karnataka Legislative Assembly were notified, the activities of election were at large. On 18-04-2018, the complainant/1st respondent registered a complaint before the Hosakote Police Station alleging that he was appointed as the Head of a Flying Squad of the election duty and on the morning of that day, Bharathiya Janatha Party had put up lot of buntings on the occasion of the arrival of Sri Amit Shah. This according to the complainant was without authorization. It is his further case that, buntings so put up unauthorisedly were ordered to be removed by a Health Inspector of the Municipality at Hosakote by name, Miss Nusrat Banu. The Health Inspector alleged that she along with her staff viz., Mr. V. Nagaraj, Mr. Chennakeshava, Mr. Ramesh and Mr. Ashok went to J.C.Circle at 6.45 a.m. and removed few buntings. At that point of time, the allegation is that, the petitioner who is the leader of the BJP in the locality obstructed for removal of buntings. This was informed by Miss Nusrat Banu to the complainant on telephone being made at 7.45 a.m.

3. On such information, it is the case of the complainant that he went to J.C. Circle along with other staff for removing unauthorized buntings and it is at that point of time, the petitioner along with others abused the Officers with filthy words and the further allegation is that, one Ashok, a resident of Kammavaripete assaulted the complainant with hand.

4. On the basis of the incident which took place between 6 a.m. and 9 a.m., a complaint came to be registered by the complainant Mr.Nisar Ahmed at 9 a.m. in Crime No.223 of 2018 alleging offences punishable under Section 127A of the Representation of People Act, 1951 and 1988, Section 3 of the Karnataka Open Place Disfigurement Act, 1951 and 1981 (for short 'the Disfigurement Act') and Section 171H of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The accused in the complaint were workers of BJP to be known.

5. On the same incident of the same time, the very same complainant registers another complaint which became Crime No.224 of 2018. The allegation is for the offences punishable under Section 504, 332 and 353 of the IPC. The time of the incident was at 7.45 a.m. to 7.50 a.m. and the complaint is registered at 9.15 a.m. Therefore, for an incident that took place between 6 a.m. and 9 a.m. two separate complaints are registered on the very same incident of removal of buntings by the very same complainant. It is these proceedings instituted by registration of FIR in Crime No.224 of 2018 that is called in question in the subject criminal petition. Insofar as Crime No.223 of 2018, it is submitted that there is substantial progress in the case and is at the stage of evidence.

6. Heard Sri Sandesh J. Chouta learned senior Advocate for Sri Karthik V., learned counsel for the petitoner; Sri S.Balan, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Smt. Namitha Mahesh B.G., learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.2.

7. The learned senior Advocate, Sri Sandesh J.Chouta, would submit that the time of offence, place of offence and the incident which has triggered in registering the complaints, all of them happened between 6 a.m. and 9 a.m. Therefore, there can be only one complaint on this incident and there cannot be multiple complaints for a solitary incident. The complaint against the petitioner was for obstruction while removing buntings. This complaint was registered at 9 a.m. which became Crime No.223 of 2018. Another complaint is registered at 9.15 a.m. which became Crime No.224 of 2018, on the very same incident. Learned senior counsel would submit that it is not permissible in law as in terms of Section 154 Cr.P.C., which deals with registration of a complaint and an FIR, there can be only one FIR against one incident and he would place reliance upon the judgments in the cases of:

Case Laws:

?1.T.T.ANTONY v. STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS - (2001) 6 SCC 181;

 2.?UPKAR?SINGH ?v. ?VED PRAKASH AND OTHERS -(2004) 13 SCC 292;

?3. ANJU CHAUDHARY v.STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER - (2013) 6 SCC 384;

 4.?P.SREE KUMAR v. STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS - (2018) 4 SCC 579;

 5. ARNAB RANJAN GOSWAMI v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS - (2020) 14 SCC 12;

 6. KRISHNA LAL CHAWLA v. STATE OF U.P -(2021) 5 SCC 435.        

Possibility of registering the second FIR??

The second FIR is a consecutive FIR filed after the information on the commission of a cognizable offence has also been given to the police officer under Section 154 CrPC. It means that the second FIR would relate to the initial FIR in regards to the same offence that has been committed or the same accused persons who have committed it. There could be various possibilities here and that is why the law has to be very specific in permitting the registration of the second FIR.?

The possibility of filing a second FIR came up in Ram Lal Narang v. State of Delhi (1979). In this case, the first FIR was revealed to be a part of the larger conspiracy that was only disclosed in the second FIR. The issue was whether the two conspiracies were identical. The court held that even though some of the conspirators were the same in both the two events, the objectives were different. It cannot be said that both FIRs refer to the commission of the same offence.

When the second FIR cannot be filed:

The impermissibility of registering the second FIR is to protect the fundamental right of an accused against double jeopardy, to maintain the rule of fair investigation and to not allow the police to abuse their investigative powers under CrPC. These three-fold safeguards prevent registration of the second FIR as held in Anju Chaudhary v. the State of UP (2012).?

Test of sameness

The legality of the second FIR was extensively discussed in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala (2001). The court established the test of sameness which means that unless in both the two cases, where the first and second FIR is registered respectively, the FIRs appear to be substantially different from each other such as in facts and circumstances, the second FIR cannot be filed. This means that the facts and circumstances giving rise to the two FIRs must be different, or the offence committed in the two must be different, or the person accused of committing the offence is different. Only then, the second FIR is permissible.?

The court further observed, that the scheme of provisions starting from Section 154 of CrPC to Section 173 CrPC, that is from the starting to the ending of an investigation, relates to the earliest or the first information given in the commission of a cognizable offence. This is what satisfies the requirement of Section 154 CrPC.?

Thus, there is no scope to start an afresh investigation on receipt of every subsequent information received in respect of the same cognizable offence.?

The court can apply the test of sameness when:

• It has to examine the facts and circumstances that are giving rise to two FIRs.?
• In trying to find out whether it relates to the same incident, the court has to either look at the occurrence of the two incidents and their relationship with each other or the transactions of the occurrence if it has occurred in parts.?
• If it finds out that the occurrence of the offence is the same or the different transaction forms the part of the same occurrence, the second FIR is liable to be quashed.?
• But if the two occurrences are based on different versions and two different crimes, the second FIR shall sustain.
• This will also cover those situations where the police get subsequent information through practice, convenience, and preponderance in further investigation allowed under Section 173(8).

Hence, at the end of the further investigation, if both the gravamen of charges in the two FIR is in substance and truth the same, the second FIR cannot be filed.?

Test of consequence?

Where the offence registered under the second F.I.R occurs as a consequence of the offence alleged to have occurred in the first FIR the ‘test of consequence’ is to be applied. In the case of C. Muniappan v. The State of T.N (2010), the court held that the offences alleged to have occurred in both the FIR are the same and thus, the second FIR will not be permissible. This test of consequence has been reiterated by the court in Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. CBI (2013).

The test of consequence is also to be applied in cases where the offence disclosed in the first FIR is not the same as the offence disclosed in the second FIR. In this case, a second FIR is permissible. This may also include a situation where the second FIR is lodged by different persons and in different police stations. In Chirag M. Pathak v. Dollyben Kantilal Patel (2018), this issue came up where six FIRs were lodged based on identical facts but in different police stations by six different cooperative societies. The Supreme Court accepted all the FIRs based on the reasoning that they are lodged by different persons and the totality of factual allegations constitutes the commission of different offences. Hence, the FIRs were not overlapping.?

It will be liable to be quashed under Article 32 and Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. The test of sameness is meant to balance the rights of an accused Article 19, Article 20(2) and Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.?

Conclusion.

The scope of the second FIR is limited under the Cr.PC as by allowing the same would only burden the different branches within the criminal justice system which is already overburdened. It can also compromise the investigation of the case as it takes a lot of time and effort on the part of the police to initiate and complete an investigation that involves many facts and circumstances of the accused and the witnesses.?

Further, there may be the misuse of these powers that would unnecessarily result in wasting the money of the taxpayers as their money is used by the state in the investigation of an offence. The law on the second FIR is still at the nascent stage and is currently explored in a limited manner through the judicial pronouncement. Unless the legislature decides to enact a law on the same, the judicial interpretation of the same must be done cautiously and harmoniously considering the rights of both parties.?