Top
Support Independent Journalism, Support Live Law. Plans starting from ₹ 599 + GST
News Updates

There Cannot Be A Fresh FIR On Receipt Of Every Subsequent Information In Respect To The Same Case: Bombay HC [Read Judgment]

Nitish Kashyap
19 April 2017 7:21 AM GMT
There Cannot Be A Fresh FIR On Receipt Of Every Subsequent Information In Respect To The Same Case: Bombay HC [Read Judgment]
Your free access to Live Law has expired
To read the article, get a premium account.
    Your Subscription Supports Independent Journalism
Subscription starts from
599+GST
(For 6 Months)
Premium account gives you:
  • Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.
  • Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
Already a subscriber?

The Bombay High Court has held that there cannot be a fresh FIR on receipt of every subsequent information in respect of the same cognizable offence or the same incident giving rise to one or more cognizable offences.

The division bench of Justices AS Oka and Anuja Prabhudessai were examining whether a second FIR can be registered in a case where the investigation has been completed and charge sheet has been filed under an order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class under Section 156(3) of the CrPC, with regard to the same incident.

Court was hearing applications filed by accused in one of the FIRs for quashing.

Brief Facts of the Case

On November 29, 2015, an FIR was registered in the Baramati district of Pune against Bhalchandra Mahadik, Vaishali Shinde and Sheetal Kale for offences punishable under Sections 306, 504 and 506 of the IPC.

It was the case of the complainant, Vilas Bhosle that his wife Sangita committed suicide a day prior on November 28. Upon completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the three accused. Following this, an application for discharge was filed by Bhalchandra before the Sessions Court, Baramati in May 2016. This application was rejected on October 1, 2016.

Then Bhalchandra filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate First Class(JMFC) alleging that the applicants and seven others murdered Sangita Bhosale. Exercising his powers under Section 156(3) of CrPC the Judicial Magistrate ordered registration of a second FIR under Section 302 of IPC, in an order dated November 15, 2016.

Courts’ Observations

Court noted that although Bhalchandra had mentioned in his complaint before the JMFC that an application for discharge had been filed by him before the Sessions Court, he very conveniently omitted the fact that this application was rejected.

Moreover, while rejecting the application the Sessions Judge had observed that there was a prima facie case made out against Bhalchandra.

Referring to the Apex Court’s observations in Amit Bhai Anilchandra Shaha v. CBI and Anr the bench observed-

“Under the scheme of the provisions of Sections 154, 155, 156, 157, 162, 169, 170 and 173 CrPC only the earliest or the first information in regard to the commission of a cognizable offence satisfied the requirements of Section 154 CrPC. Thus, there can be no second FIR and consequently there can be no fresh investigation on receipt of every subsequent information in respect of the same cognizable offence or the same occurrence or incident giving rise to one or more cognizable offences.”

In another case, apex court he Apex Court observed that if both FIRs relate to the same incident and to the same occurrence, the second FIR will be liable to be quashed. However, if they relate to incidents which are in two or more parts of the same transaction or relate completely to a distinct occurrence, the second FIR is permissible.

Court held that the present case will fall in the first category. Hence, the second FIR was quashed.

Read the Judgment here.

Next Story