There cannot be two FIRs against the same accused in respect of the same case. But when there are rival versions in respect of the same episode, they would normally take the shape of two different FIRs and investigation can be carried on under both of them by the same investigating agency. SC JUDGEMENT.

            Usually, after committing  criminal offence, offender themselves make/lodge the first information, so as to create alibi of innocence.  As per the legal procedure, after  such first information report (FIR), investigation normally proceed against those named as accused in the FIR and, in case the investigating officer fails to obtain any evidence against the named accused, then the needle of suspicion may turn against the informant himself. At times,  the real culprit lodges the first information against known or unknown person to misdirect the investigation of an offence. It is only during the course of investigation to the first FIR that the case may change direction.

            When it does so, the informant may also have to face additional charges for the offences punishable under various provisions of Chapter XI of IPC ( False evidence and offences against public justice).

            Such type of case may be exemplified by referring to a case of Kari Chaudhary vs. Mst. Sita Devi & Ors. (2002). The case is that the mother-in-law was figured as the complainant in a case of culpable homicide of her daughter-in-law but eventually she was transposed  as one of the delinquent offender.

The fact of the  case is –  the mother-in-law, (Sita Devi) of the victim first filed a complaint of culpable homicide against unknown persons, who, allegedly sneaked into the bedroom of her daughter-in-law ( Sugnia Devi)  and murdered her. During the progress of the investigation into the FIR registered on the basis of the mother-in-law’s complaint, the Police found that the murder was committed pursuant to a conspiracy hatched by the first informant and her other daughters-in-law. Therefore, the Police sent a report to the Court to the effect that the allegations in the FIR registered at the behest of the mother-in-law were false. The Police thereafter registered a fresh FIR and continued the investigation against the original informant and others. The original informant filed a protest petition against the Report of the Police on the first FIR, but the same was rejected by the Chief Judicial Magistrate However, the said order was overturned by the High Court in a revision and the CJM was directed to conduct an inquiry under Section 202 of the Code. Thereafter, the Police filed a chargesheet against the original informant (mother-in-law) and two others. The CJM committed the case to Sessions and the Sessions Judge framed a charge for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 but the mother-in-law approached the High Court and got the proceedings quashed.

 

Hence, the appeal was filed by brother of the deceased sister, Sugnia Devi.

 

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT/ORIGINAL COMPLAINANT

 

            Once the High Court has aside the impugn judgement in the protest petition that was ordered by the CJM and the police has also reached to the conclusion that the FIR stands rejected because of the false original complaint, there cannot be another prosecution against the original complaint.

           

            The Apex Court while rejecting the above contention, held that the course adopted by the Court on the first complaint cannot disable the police to continue the investigation into the offence and to reach a final conclusion regarding the real culprit.

 

            Another contention by the original complaint was that the proceedings initiated under the first FIR ended in final report, the police had no authority to register a second FIR.

            While dealing with the said contention, this Court opined; “Of course the legal position is that there cannot be two FIRs against the same accused in respect of the same case. But when there are rival versions in respect of the same episode, they would normally take the shape of two different FIRs and investigation can be carried on under both of them by the same investigating agency.”

            The Court also said  “the ultimate object of every investigation is to find out whether the offences alleged have been committed and if so, who have committed.

            Therefore, the impugn order, of the High Court of Patna, quashing the criminal proceedings  against the accused so arraigned for the offence they committed, was unsustainable.

By Justice K. Thomas and Justice S.N. Phukan.

Thank You for reading!!