Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.482 – Two FIRs filed in relation to the same offence and against the same accused – Whether the subsequent FIR was liable to be quashed – In the instant case, appellant was Chief Executive Trustee of a Trust and respondent no.2 was one of the trustees and respondent no.3 was treasurer of the Trust – Respondent no.2 filed a complaint against the appellant, respondent no.3 and three bank officials alleging that they conspired together to defraud the Trust and siphoned off around Rs.42 lacs of the Trust – FIR was registered – Subsequently, appellant also filed an FIR against respondent no.3 alleging fraud and forgery – Appellant failed in seeking quashing of proceedings pending against him – However, respondent no.3 successfully moved application for quashing of FIR filed against him by appellant on the ground that he cannot be made to face two trials on the same set of facts and for same offences in two different courts – Hence appeal – Held: The second FIR filed by the appellant against respondent No.3 though related to the same incident for which the first FIR was filed by respondent No.2 against the appellant, respondent No.3 and the three Bank officials, yet the second FIR was legally maintainable and could be entertained for being tried on its merits firstly since the second FIR was not filed by the same person, who had filed the first FIR, secondly it was filed by the appellant as a counter-complaint against respondent No.3 and thirdly the first FIR was against five persons based on one set of allegations whereas the second FIR was based on the allegations different from the allegations made in the first FIR – Trial against respondent no.3 restored to its file for being tried on merits in accordance with law.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD : There is no prohibition in law to file the second FIR and once it is filed, such FIR is capable of being taken note of and tried on merits in accordance with law. The second FIR filed by the appellant against respondent No.3 though related to the same incident for which the first FIR was filed by respondent No.2 against the appellant, respondent No.3 and three Bank officials, yet the second FIR being in the nature of a countercomplaint against respondent No.3 was legally maintainable and could be entertained for being tried on its merits. It is for the reasons that firstly, the second FIR was not filed by the same person, who had filed the first FIR. Had it been so, then the situation would have been somewhat different. Such was not the case here; Second, it was filed by the appellant as a countercomplaint against respondent No.3; Third, the first FIR was against five persons based on one set of allegations whereas the second FIR was based on the allegations different from the allegations made in the first FIR. The Magistrate will now proceed to try and decide the case on merits and while doing so, he will be free to examine all the issues arising in the case from all the angles in the light of the evidence that will be adduced by the parties. If the Magistrate finds that the material brought on record against any person(s) including the appellant herein in the evidence indicating the involvement of any such person(s) in commission of the alleged offences, he will be free to proceed against any such person(s) in accordance with law and bring the proceedings to its logical end uninfluenced by any of our observations. [Paras 31, 32, 33, 35, 36] [672-G-H; 673-A-C, F-G]
Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash & Ors. (2004) 13 SCC
292 ; Surender Kaushik & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors. (2013) 5 SCC 148 : [2013] 1 SCR 1053 – relied on.
State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajanlal (1992) 1 Suppl. SCC 335 : [1990] 3 Suppl. SCR 259 ; Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra (1977) 4 SCC 551 :
[1978] 1 SCR 749 ; R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866 : [1960] SCR 388 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.