ANJU CHAUDHARY versus STATE OF U.P. & ANR.

Citation: [2012] 13 S.C.R. 901 · Decided: 13-12-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SWATANTER KUMAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2012] 13 S.C.R. 901 
ANJU CHAUDHARY 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. & ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 2039 of 2012) 
DECEMBER 13, 2012 
[SWATANTER KUMAR AND MADAN B. LOKUR, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
A 
B 
s. 154 - FIR - Whether it is permissible to register two c 
different FIRs in law - Held: There cannot be two FIRs 
registered for the same offence - However, where the incident 
is separate; offences are similar or different, or even where 
the subsequent crime is of such magnitude that it does not 
fall within the ambit and scope of the FIR recorded first, then 0 
a second FIR could be registered - It has to be examined on 
the merits of each case whether a subsequently registered FIR 
is a second FIR about the same incident or offence or is 
based upon distinct and different facts and whether its scope 
of inquiry is entirely different or not - This will always be a E 
mixed question of law and facts depending upon the merits 
of a given case - The Court in order to examine the impact 
of one or more FIRs has to rationalise the facts and 
circumstances of each case and then apply the test of 
'sameness' to find out whether both FIRs relate to the same 
incident and to the same occurrence, are in regard to incidents 
F 
which are two or more parts of the same transaction or relate 
completely to two distinct occurrences - If the answer falls in 
the first category, the second FIR may be liable to be quashed 
- However, in case the contrary is proved, whether the version 
of the second FIR is different and they are in respect of two G 
different incidents/crimes, the second FIR is permissible. 
s.154 - FIR - Whether an accused entitled to hearing pre-
registration of an FIR - Held: The scheme of CrPC does not 
901 
H 
902 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 13 S.C.R. 
A provide for any right of hearing at the time of registration of 
the FIR - The very purpose of fair and just investigation shall 
stand frustrated if pre-registration hearing is required to be 
granted to a suspect - There would be the pre-dominant 
possibility of a suspect escaping the process of law - The 
s entire scheme of CrPC supports the theory of exclusion of 
audi alteram partem pre-registration of an FIR. 
ss. 154 and 220 - Common trial or a common FIR for one 
series of acts so connected together as to form the same 
transaction - Expression "same transaction" - Meaning of -
C 
Held: It is not possible to enunciate any formula of universal 
application for purpose of determining whether two or more 
acts constitute the same transaction - Such things to be 
gathered from the circumstances of a given case indicating 
proximity of time, unity or proximity of place, continuity of 
D action, commonality of purpose or design. 
s. 156(3) - Power of the Magistrate under - Discussed. 
In the present appeal, the appellant challenged the 
legality and correctness of the order of the High Court 
E inter alia on the grounds: (i) that in law, there cannot be 
two FIRs registered in relation to the same occurrence or 
different events or incidents two or more but forming part 
of the same transaction and thus on facts, the direction 
to register a second FIR, was contrary to law and the very 
F 
spirit of Section 154 of the Code; (ii) that the order of the 
High Court was in violation of the principles of natural 
justice inasmuch as the High Court neither gave any 
notice nor heard the appellant before passing the 
impugned order and (iii) that the High Court while virtually 
G directing the Magistrate to get an FIR registered, 
foreclosed the exercise of judicial discretion by the 
Magistrate and as such, the order of the High Court was 
not sustainable. 
H 
Per contra, on behalf of the State as well as 
ANJU CHAUDHARY v. STATE OF U.P. 
903 
respondent no.2 it was inter alia contended that there A 
were no two separate FIRs in relation to the same offence 
or occurrence, but these FIRs related to two different 
incidents which was permissible in law and that the 
appellant was not entitled to any hearing in law at the 
stage of filing the FIR. 
B 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 
Whether it is permissible to register two different FIRs in c 
law 
1.1. On the plain construction of the language and 
scheme of Sections 154, 156 and 190 of the Code of 
Criminal Procedure, it cannot be construed or suggested 
that there can be more than one FIR about an occurrence. D 
However, the opening words of Section 154 suggest that 
every information relating to co

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