Complainant Lodging Multiple FIRs Against Accused On Same Facts Violates Fundamental Rights Under Articles 21, 22: Kerala High Court

Justice A. Badharudeen observed that multiple FIR's would result in multiple proceedings against the same accused for same offences. The Court observed that second FIR is only permissible against the same accused for commission of entirely different offence which was not covered under the first FIR.

“…the registration of such multiple first information reports is nothing but an abuse of process of law and the same would not stand in the scrutiny of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. In such cases, while permitting investigation in one FIR registered initially, other FIRs shall be quashed. At the same time, registration of first information reports by the same person against the same accused for entirely different offence/s, not covered by the first information report earlier registered, is within the orbit of law and such FIRs cannot be quashed.”

In the facts of the case, two FIR's were registered by the same de facto complainant against the same accused for disclosure of identity of rape victim.

The first FIR was registered at Ernakulam Cyber Police Station alleging that the accused disclosed the identity of the victim through a Facebook page in 2022. Offences were registered alleging commission of offences punishable under Section 23 (4) (procedure for media) of the POCSO Act, Section 228A (disclosure of identity of victim of certain offences) of the IPC.

The second FIR was registered alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 228A, 201 read with Section 34 of IPC, Sections 23 and 17 of the POCSO Act for disclosure of identity of victim through Facebook in 2023.

The accused has thus approached the Court for quashing the FIR's alleging that both FIR's pertains to same set of allegations. It was argued that multiple FIR's cannot be filed in relation to one occurrence.

The de facto complainant submitted that FIR was not registered twice for same offence. It was submitted that identity of rape victim was disclosed through Facebook during two different time periods, in 2022 and 2023. It was submitted that registration of crime for different occurrences in different periods could not be held as registration of FIR for the same occurrence.

The Court noted that registration of multiple FIR's by same complainant against same accused on same set of allegations is abuse of law. It said, “…the legal position is emphatically clear on the point that 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, the same would result in getting the accused entangled in multiple criminal proceedings for the same offences.”

However, in the facts of the case, the Court observed that FIR was registered and final report was filed when the identity of victim was published in 2022. The Court further noted that the accused again published the identity of the victim in 2023. It said, “Therefore, the same is a distinct and different offence, for which registration of a fresh first information report is legally sustainable.”

The Court observed that in both crimes, prime facie case is made out against the accused. As such, the Court dismissed his prayer for quashing the FIR's and observed that trial is warranted in both crimes.

Case Number: Crl.MC No. 4154 of 2024 & other case

Case Title: Gargian Sudheeran v State of Kerala & other case

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 20