The Kerala High Court held that if both the FIRs are with the same set of allegations and the offences constituting from the allegations are the same, the second FIR and the proceedings following such second FIR are illegal.
In the present case, both FIRs had substantial difference and accused were also not same. Hence, there was no bar on Second FIR.
Brief Facts:
A retired Teacher passed away in 2003, leaving behind a property. In 2007, a sale deed was forged to transfer the property to Gracy Jacob. The property was then sold to V. Hashim who filed a complaint in 2023 alleging that the sale deed was forged and that the property rightfully belonged to him.
The Accused, Muhammed Kunhi and others were charged with Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The Accused Individuals filed a petition seeking discharge, but it was dismissed. The Accused approached the High Court by way of revision petitions challenging the dismissal of their discharge petition.
Observations of the Court:
The Court noted the scope and ambit of Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. It was held that The Court is vested with the power to call for and examine the records of an inferior Court for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularity of any proceedings or order made in a case. The revisional jurisdiction can be invoked where the decisions under challenge are grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with the provisions of law, the finding recorded is based on no evidence, material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely.
It was opined that the revisional jurisdiction has a narrow scope.
In the present case, the Bench noted that if both the FIRs are with the same set of allegations and the offences constituting from the allegations are the same, the second FIR and the proceedings following such second FIR are illegal.
In the present case, both FIRs had substantial difference and accused were also not same. Hence, there was no bar on Second FIR.
The decision of the Court:
Based on the aforementioned reasons, the High Court accordingly dismissed the revision petitions.
Case Title: M.Mohammed Kunhi v. State Of Kerala & Anr.
Case No.: CRL.REV.PET NO. 355 OF 2019
Coram: Hon’ble Justice P.G. Ajithkumar
Advocates for Petitioner: Advs. Suresh Kumar Kodoth, Sri.K.P.Antony Binu
Advocate for Respondent: Advs. Smt. Seena C.,Jawahar JosE
Read More @LatestLaws.com:
Picture Source :
