AMITBHAI ANILCHANDRA SHAH versus THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ANR.

Citation: [2013] 6 S.C.R. 623 · Decided: 08-04-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2013] 6 S.C.R. 623 
AMITBHAI ANILCHANDRA SHAH 
v. 
THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ANR. 
(Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 149 of 2012) 
APRIL 8, 2013 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss.154, 155, 156, 
157, 162, 169, 170 and 173(8) - Second FIR - Registration 
A 
B 
of - Permissibility - Held: - There can be no second FIR and C 
consequently, there can be no fresh investigation on receipt 
of every subsequent information in respect of same 
cognizable offence or the same occurrence, giving rise to one 
or more cognizable offences - Sub-s. (8) of s. 173 empowers 
the police to make further investigation, in such cases - In 
D 
the facts and circumstances of the present case, second FIR 
and fresh charge--sheet is unwarranted and violative of 
fundamental right u/Arts. 14, 20 and 21 of the Constitution -
Hence, the same is quashed and charge-sheet filed in 
pursuance of the second FIR, directed to be regarded as a E 
supplementary charge-sheet in the first FIR - Constitution of 
India, 1950 - Arts. 14, 20 and 21. 
Administration of Criminal Justice - Court needs to strike 
balance between fundamental rights of accused and power of 
police to investigate a cognizable offence - Sweeping power 
F 
of investigation does not warrant subjecting a citizen each 
time, to fresh investigation in respect of the same incident, 
giving rise to one or more cognizable offences - Code of 
Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.154 - Constitution of India, 
1950 - Fundamental Rights. 
G 
In the writ petition [Rubabuddin sheikh vs. State of 
Gujarat and Ors. (2010) 2 SCC 200], Supreme Court 
entrusted the investigation regarding fake encounter of 
623 
H 
'
624 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 6 S.C.R. 
A 'S' and abduction of 'K' (wife of 'S') by the Gujarat police 
authorities (including the petitioners in the present case) 
to CBI from State police. The Court also expressed a 
suspicion that the killing of 'TP' -(a close associate of 'S') 
could be the part of the conspiracy of killing of 'S' and 
B abduction of 'K'. CBI, pursuant thereto lodged first FIR 
against the present writ petitioners. 
In another writ petition by mother of 'TP' (Narmada 
Bai vs. State of Gujarat and Ors. (2011) 5 SCC 79), 
Supreme Court rejected the investigation conducted by 
C the State Police and entrusted the investigation regarding 
disappearance and death of 'TP' to CBI. CBI lodged 
second FIR in respect of death of 'TP' against the writ 
petitioners in the present case. 
D 
The accused Nos.1 and 3 in the second FIR, filed the 
present writ petitions on the ground that the second FIR 
was violative of their fundamental rights under Articles 14, 
20 and 21 of the Constitution and contrary to the 
directions given in Narmada Bai's case and prayed for 
E quashing the second FIR and to treat the charge-sheet 
in respect of the second FIR as supplementary charge-
sheet in the first FIR. 
Allowing the petitions, the Court 
F 
HELD: 1.1. The various provisions of the Cr.P.C. 
clearly show that an officer-in-charge of a police station 
has to commence investigation as provided in Section 
156 or 157 Cr.P.C. on the basis of entry of the First 
Information Report, on coming to know of the 
G commission of cognizable offence. On completion of 
investigation and on the basis of evidence collected, 
Investigating Officer has to form an opinion under Section 
169 or 170 Cr.P.C. and forward his report to the 
concerned Magistrate under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C .. Even 
H after filing of such a report, if he comes into possession 
AMITBHAI ANILCHANDRA SHAH v. CENTRAL 
625 
BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 
of further information or material, there is no need to A 
register a fresh FIR, he is empowered to make further· 
investigation normally with the leave of the Court and 
where during further investigation, he collects further 
evidence, oral or documentary, he is obliged to forward 
the same with one or more further reports which is B 
evident from sub-section (8) of s.173 Cr.P.C .. Under the 
scheme of the provisions of ss.154, 155, 156, 157, 162, 
169, 170 and 173 Cr.P.C., ·only the earliest or the first 
information in regard to the commission of a cognizable 
offence satisfies the requirements of s.154 Cr.P.C .. Thus, c 
there can be no second FIR and, consequently, there can 
be no fresh investigation oh receipt of every subsequent 
information in respect of the same cognizable offence or 
· the same occurrence or incident giving rise 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.