LexSURENDER KAUSHIK AND OTHERS versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 1 S.C.R. 1053 SURENDER KAUSHIK AND OTHERS v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS (Criminal Appeal No. 305 of 2013) FEBRUARY 14, 2013 [K.5. RADHAKRISHNAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] FIR - Lodgment of two Fl Rs - In respect of same incident A B - Permissibility - Held - Lodgment of two FIRs is not permissible in respect of one and the same incident - C However, the concept of sameness does not encompass filing of counter FIR - Prohibition is for further complaint by same complainant and others against the same accused - In the present case, the allegations in the FIRs are distinct and separate and the same may be regarded as counter D complaint - Principle of sameness does not get attracted - Hence, second FIR not liable to be quashed on account of existence of first FIR - Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 226 and 227. The question for consideration in the present appeal was whether after registration of FIR and commencement of investigation, a second FIR relating to the same incident on the basis of a direction issued by the Magistrate u/s. 156 (3) Cr.P.C. can be registered. Dismissing the appeal, the Court E F HELD: 1 .. Lodgment of two FIRs is not permissible in respect of one and the same incident. The concept of sameness has been given a restricted meaning. It does G not encompass filing of a counter FIR relating to the same or connected cognizable offence. What is prohibited is any further complaint by the same complainant and others against the same accused subsequent to the 1053 H 1054 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 1 S.C.R. A registration of the case under Cr.P.C, for an investigation in that regard would have already commenced and allowing registration of further complaint would amount to an improvement of the facts mentioned in the original complaint. The prohibition does not cover the allegations B made by the accused in the first FIR alleging a different version of the same incident. Thus, rival versions in respect of the same incident do take different shapes and in that event, lodgment of two FIRs is permissible. [Para 24) [1067-G-H; 1068-A-C] c 2. In the present case, if the involvement of the number of accused persons and the nature of the allegations are scrutinized, it becomes crystal clear that every FIR has a different spectrum. The allegations made are distinct and separate. It may be regarded as a counter D complaint and cannot be stated that an effort has been made to improve the allegations that find place in the first FIR. It is impossible to say that the principle of sameness gets attracted. If the said principle is made applicable to the case at hand and the investigation is scuttled by E quashing the FIRs, the complainants in the other two FIRs would be deprived of justice. The appellants have lodged the FIR making the allegations against certain persons, but that does not debar the other aggrieved persons to move the court for direction of registration of F an FIR as there have been other accused persons including the complainant in the first FIR involved in the forgery and fabrication of documents and getting benefits from the statutory authority. To say that it is a second FIR relating to the same cause of action and the same G incident and there is sameness of occurrence and an attempt has been made to improvise the case is not correct. Hence, the plea that the FIR lodged by the fourth respondent is a second FIR and is, therefore, liable to be . quashed, does not merit acceptance. [Para 25) [1068-G- H H; 1069-A-E] SURENDER KAUSHIK v. STATE OF UTTAR 1055 PRADESH Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash and Ors. (2004) 13 SCC A 292 - relied on. Amrawati and Anr. v. State of UP 2005 Crl. L.J. 755; Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (2009) 4 SCC 437: 2009 (4) SCR 1027; State of Haryana B and Ors. v. Bhajan Lal and Ors. 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335: 1990 (3) Suppl. SCR 259; T. T. Antony v. State of Kera/a and Ors. (2001) 6 SCC 181: 2001 (3) SCR 942; Pandurang Chandrakant Mhatre and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra (2009) 10 SCC 773: 2009 (15) SCR 58; Babubhai v. State of Gujarat and Ors. (2010) 12 SCC 254: 201 O (10) SCR 651; C Ram Lal Narang v. State (Delhi Administration) (1979) 2 SCC 322; State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu alias Afsan Guru (2005) 11 SCC 600: 2005 (2) Suppl. SCR 79; Ram Mohan Garg v. State of U.P. (1990) 27 ACC 438; Kari Choudhary v. Sita Devi (2002) 1 SCC 714: 2001 (5)
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.