Can more than one FIR be filed against same person for the same offence?

What you need to do as a Law Student?

Find out the relevant articles or sections and Judgments proving both the sides or any one side

You can post or research in the comments below. Also we can organize a live class discussing this point. Comment down below if you are interested

3 thoughts on “Can more than one FIR be filed against same person for the same offence?”

  1. FIR is a first information report. It is written document prepared by the police when they receive information about the information about the commission of a cognisable offence. It is recorded by an officer in charge of the police station. The registered FIR under CRPC allows offence. The police officer under this section will to take note of the information given to him as to the commission of the offence this section holds immense importance because this is where the whole process of investigation starts. The second way given under sec.157(1) of crpc when the police office register the same by itself on the information received. Once the FIR is registered, it cannot be field on bestest of direction issued by magistrate under section 156 (3) separate offence with distinct ingredients independent of those who covered in the first investigation is found, similar to FIRs under section 154.

    Multiple FIRs are not supported because it violates Act 17,20 and 21 of the Indian constitution of the accused are TT ANTHONY V. STATE OF KERALA ,the Doctrine of sameness was given which says that 2nd FIR or fresh FIR of same incident is not allowed. In this case what happened was that, MV Raghavan was the MLA of CPI(M) party but he broke away and made a new party i.e CMP later it changed to UPP, he was the minister of this government CMP(I) youth get violated by this action of the MV Raghvan and wanted him not to enter Or visit kannu district but due to some reason he went their and bombs hurled at him. The then government ordered to elaborate security arrangements for all his visits to kannu district and adviced him not to appear their. But he appeared against the advice of district administration, the minister finalised his visit for inauguration of “evening branch of cooperation urban Bank ” in kannu district. It turned out to be Ann ill-starred day not only for victims of police excuses and their families but also for victim of police exercises and their families and public. The government got challenged LDF over UDP. TT Anthony was executive magistrate, inquiry commission said that he didn’t evaluate situation due to which 5 deaths held. Government accepted report and accused T.T. Anthony and Raghavan. Further state wanted a fresh investigation and wants to file a fresh FIR on their Karnataka HC said registration of 2nd FIR on the same incident to improve the earlier investigation. but the course adopted, in this each was that the registration of information as 2nd FIR in regard to the same incident and making a fresh investigation is not permissible under scheme of provision of the CRPC as pointed above.

    The recent case of SATINDER BASIN CASE everytime the accused came out on bail in some one FIR he got arrested by some other on the same FIR , so everytime he got bail police used to arrest him again. The FIRs were registered at police station kasna, Gautam budh nagar, greate Noida, UP and police station economic offence using and at parliament Street, New Delhi and all other FIRs that have been lodged against the petitioner in the state of UP and state of NCT of Delhi but are not within the knowledge of court. The petitioner during the pendency of the court. The petitioner during the pendency of writ petition. The substantive relief claimed in the writ petition, by invoking art.32 of COI . For Violation Of Fundamental Rights Of The Petitioner under Article 14,19 & 21 of the constitution of India , is to issue mandamus directing CBI take over the investigation of all FIRs registered against the petitioner in the state of UP and the state of NCT of Delhi respectively in connection with the project by the name “Grand Venice” in the national capital region in particular Mall and commercial Tower there of and in respect of which by separate arguments the company of which the petitioner is director , had agreed to sell you need in that stated mall and commercial tower, as the case may be, to the party concerned. In the alternative, it is prayed that the FIRs Filed Against The petitioner at different points of time in the state of UP or the state of NCT of Delhi be consolidated and the investigation be entrusted To One Agency So That The Criminal Action Against the petitioner can proceed at one place . it is also noticed from the pleadings and affidavit filed on record, that the petitioner application for grant of bail in respect of all the fir registered against him have already been rejected by the court concerned. Those orders have not be assailed . But in the writ petition, it is urged that instead of asking the petitioner to file separate bail application, this court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction , may entertain a common prayer in that regard and grant bail to the petitioner as recently granted in the similar situation by another bench of the supreme court in SURINDER ALAGH V UOI(2019)

    The ARNAB GOSWAMI CASE , proposal was raised from the side of the petitioner regarding clubbing the multiple FIR that had been filed against the petitioner in various places. however the issue that arose was with regards of whether the apex court is constitutionally empowered to club such multiple FIRs with accusation against the individual in different jurisdiction into the single one . From this case the stand of SC with regards to filing such petition is also clear, the court held that despite the availability of other redressal mechanism and the option to file the petitions before the concerned HC, the petitioner decided to invoke the jurisdiction of open court this matter under act.32. The SC also made it clear that the contents of the FIR, viz.the alleged offences against the petitioner,are not to be ascertained or deliberated upon the court under jurisdiction provided to it within art.32 of COI. Thus, a plea to quash the FIRs was not entertained by the SC in this case.

    In the very recent and famous NUPUR SHARMA CASE also the same issue of multiple FIR was faced . female offensive comments during the debate on the dispute over the gyanvapi mosque. N L with abusive comments against Prophet Muhammad he appeared to have bitter of more than she could crew. many FIR registered against her in different parts of the India. So her lawyer requested the court to Club all the cases and transfer them to Delhi so she does not have to run around. On 10th August Supreme Court directed clubbing and transferred all FIRs lodged across the country against Nupur Sharma to Delhi Police .The Supreme court also allowed the case to move to the Delhi High Court for quashing of FIRs while Saying all future FIR would also be transferred to Delhi police for investigation. The court departed from the principle of the “First FIR” . the first case against her was register in Maharashtra. the court rejected the plea of West bengal government, filed through Counsel Maneka Guruswamy , that the court set up a joint special investigation team , monitored by the court, to probe into the matter and the FIRs registered in all states will be respected . but instead the court said that the FIR will be probed bye Intelligence fusion and strategic cooperation (IFSC) of the delhi police and said that will be at liberty to collect the information from across the states.

    If we summarise this, it is concluded that two or more than two FIRs create problem for the accused one and violates his rights that are under art.19,20 and 21. As we know FIR is the first information report, the first written FIR should be followed. The SC must have the power to clubbing multiple FIRs into one as it is the open court in that way the problem of multiple FIRs should be solved.

Comments are closed.

error: Content is protected !!