2nd FIR in same offence not maintainable: Punjab & Haryana HC

As per Vijay’s counsel, Vijay, after being convicted, in the first FIR by the judicial magistrate, was later acquitted in the appeal by the additional district and sessions judge of Panchkula court. The counsel argued that the registration of the second FIR is an abuse of the process of the court, because the first FIR, in which the petitioner now has been acquitted already, stood registered under the identical sections. He contended that in respect the same occurrence, two FIRs were registered, which is impermissible.

Hearing the matter Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi after perusing the judgments held, “In the present case applying the said test of ‘sameness’, it would be seen that the FIR in Panchkula pertains to an offence of theft under Section 379 IPC and the challan was submitted under Section 379/411 IPC. The scooter was recovered in Chandigarh by the police of Police Station Mani Majra and the FIR was registered under Sections 379/411 IPC. Therefore, both the FIRs/occurrences pertained to one incident/occurrence of theft or it could be said that there were two incidents which are part of the same transaction which is theft in Panchkula and consequent recovery of the Activa in Chandigarh”.

“A second FIR…is thus not maintainable. One of the exceptions to the aforementioned principle is where there are two rival versions in respect of the same episode in which case they would ordinarily take the shape of two different FIRs and the investigation can be carried on under both of them by the same investigating agency. Therefore, filing of the second FIR and fresh charge-sheet is clearly impermissible in law,” said Justice Bedi, quashing the second FIR, along with all consequential proceedings.