Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vaibhav Tiwari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 March, 2025
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:13777
1 MCRC-43947-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 19th OF MARCH, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 43947 of 2024
VAIBHAV TIWARI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Vijay Kumar Shukla - Advocate for the petitioner.
Smt. Geeta Yadav - Govt. Advocate for the State.
Shri Pradeep Kumar Dubey - Advocate for respondent No.2.
ORDER
This is a petition filed under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking quashment of the FIR/Crime No.159/2022
registered at the Police Station, Ranjhi District Jabalpur in respect of the
offence punishable under sections 147, 294, 323 and 506/34 of the IPC
contained in Annexure-P/3.
2. The counsel for the petitioner contends that, it is case of double
jeopardy, inasmuch as on the same set of allegations, previously an FIR vide
Crime No.158/2022 was lodged at the Police Station, Ranjhi District
Jabalpur. The said report was lodged on 18-02-2022 at around 00:46 hrs.,
which ultimately ensued in filing of the charge-sheet before the Court.
Eventually, after conclusion of the trial, the present petitioner was acquitted
vide judgment dated 02-11-2023. However, pertaining to same incident
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:13777
2 MCRC-43947-2024
another FIR was lodged around 02:08 hrs. on 18-02-2022. It is contended by
the counsel that when there is judgment of the Court pertaining to same set
of allegations, there cannot be subsequent FIR.
3. The counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and submitted that
the FIR requires to be dealt with by the Court concerned, as there are direct
allegations against the petitioner for commission of the alleged offence.
4.The counsel for the objector/complainant has expressed no
objection.
5. Having considered the submissions, apparently the allegations in the
FIRs contained in Annexure-P/1 as well as Annexure-P/3, are identical and
both the FIRs pertain to the same incident. The question of filing of First
Information Report in respect of the same offence, was considered by the
Apex Court in the case of T.T. Antony vs. State of Karala and Others
reported in (2001) 6 SCC 181 wherein, in paras 18 and 20 it is ruled thus :
"18. An information given under sub-section (1) of Section 154
CrPC is commonly known as first information report (FIR) though
this term is not used in the Code. It is a very important document.
And as its nickname suggests it is the earliest and the first
information of a cognizable offence recorded by an officer in
charge of a police station. It sets the criminal law in motion and
marks the commencement of the investigation which ends up with
the formation of opinion under Section 169 or 170 CrPC, as the
case may be, and forwarding of a police report under Section 173
CrPC. It is quite possible and it happens not infrequently that more
informations than one are given to a police officer in charge of a
police station in respect of the same incident involving one or
more than one cognizable offences. In such a case he need not
enter every one of them in the station house diary and this is
implied in Section 154 CrPC. Apart from a vague information by a
phone call or a cryptic telegram, the information first entered in
the station house diary, kept for this purpose, by a police officer in
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:13777
3 MCRC-43947-2024
charge of a police station is the first information report -- FIR
postulated by Section 154 CrPC. All other informations made
orally or in writing after the commencement of the investigation
into the cognizable offence disclosed from the facts mentioned in
the first information report and entered in the station house diary
by the police officer or such other cognizable offences as may
come to his notice during the investigation, will be statements
falling under Section 162 CrPC. No such information/statement
can properly be treated as an FIR and entered in the station house
diary again, as it would in effect be a second FIR and the same
cannot be in conformity with the scheme of CrPC. Take a case
where an FIR mentions cognizable offence under Section 307 or
326 IPC and the investigating agency learns during the
investigation or receives fresh information that the victim died, no
fresh FIR under Section 302 IPC need be registered which will be
irregular; in such a case alteration of the provision of law in the
first FIR is the proper course to adopt. Let us consider a different
situation in which H having killed W, his wife, informs the police
that she is killed by an unknown person or knowing that W is
killed by his mother or sister, H owns up the responsibility and
during investigation the truth is detected; it does not require filing
of fresh FIR against H -- the real offender -- who can be
arraigned in the report under Section 173(2) or 173(8) CrPC, as
the case may be. It is of course permissible for the investigating
officer to send up a report to the Magistrate concerned even earlier
that investigation is being directed against the person suspected to
be the accused.
* * *
20. From the above discussion it follows that 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 satisfies 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. On receipt of information about a
cognizable offence or an incident giving rise to a cognizable
offence or offences and on entering the FIR in the station house
diary, the officer in charge of a police station has to investigate not
merely the cognizable offence reported in the FIR but also other
connected offences found to have been committed in the course of
the same transaction or the same occurrence and file one or more
reports as provided in Section 173 CrPC."
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:13777
4 MCRC-43947-2024
6. The aforesaid decision of T.T. Antony (supra) was considered by
the Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No.7496/2021 (Dr. Pawan
Tamrakar and Another vs. M.P. Special Police Establishment &
Others) dated 08.06.2021 where in paragraphs 7 and 18 the Division Bench
observed thus :
"7.Considering the above statutory provisions by various
judicial pronouncements, it is settled that there can be
no straightjacket formula for consolidating or clubbing the FIR
and Courts are required to examine the facts of each case. A
second FIR in respect of same offence or different offences
committed in the course of same transaction is not permissible.
The second FIR on the basis of receipt of information in respect of
same
cognizable offence or the same occurrence or incident giv
ing rise one or more
cognizable offences is not permissible. It is
also settled that the Courts are required to draw a bala
nce between the fundamental rights of the citizens under Article
19 & 21 of the Constitution and expansive power of the police
investigate to
investigate a cognizable offence. In a given case, second
successive FIR for same or connected cognizable offence
alleged to have been committed in the course of the sa
me transaction in respect of which earlier FIR is already
registered, may furnish a ground for interference by the Court but
where
the FIRs are based upon the separate incident or similar
or different offences or the subsequent crime is of such
magnitude that it does not fall within the ambit and scope of the
earlier FIR then the second FIR can be registered. Where two
incidents took place at different point of time or
involve different person or there is no commonality and the
purpose thereof is different and the circumstances are also
different then there can be more than one FIR. The Court is
required to see the circumstances of a given case indicating
proximity of time, unity or proximity of case, continuity of action,
commonality of purpose of the crime to ascertain if more than one
FIR can be allowed to stand.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:13777
5 MCRC-43947-2024
* * *
18. Thus, it is settled that subsequent FIRs for different offences
committed in the course of same transaction or offences arising as
a consequence of prior offence is not permissible but the second
complaint in regard to the same incident filed as a counter
complaint as also the second FIR for the same nature of offence
against same accused persons lodged by different person or
containing the different allegation is permissible."
7. Therefore, the aforesaid law which has been laid down by the Apex
Court as well as Division Bench of this Court reflects that if the FIR is not
based on separate incident and pertains to same transaction or incident, the
interference by the Court is permissible.
8. Accordingly, the impugned FIRs contained in Annexure-P/2 and
Annexure-P/3 stand quashed and the ensued proceedings thereon, also stand
quashed. Bail bond and surety bond, if any, also stand discharged.
9. Consequently, the instant petition stands allowed.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
ac
