LexT.T. ANTONY versus STATE OF KERALA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G H T.T. ANTONY v. STATE OF KERALA AND ORS. JULY 12, 2001 [SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.] Criminal Procedure Code, 1973--Sections 154,155, 156, 157, 162,169, 170 and 173. Second FIR-Maintainability of-Held, there can be no second FIR in respect of the same cognizable offence-Only information first entered in the Station House Diary can be regarded as FIR under Section 154-All subsequent information regarding the case, will fall under Section 162. Power of Police officer to investigate a case-Scope of-Held, Police Officer not merely to investigate a congnizable offence reported in FIR but all other connected offences committed in the course of same transaction. Constitution of India, J 950-Articles 226, 227 and J 36-Statuto1y power of police officer to investigate a congnizable offence-lnteiference by Courts-Permissibility of-Filing of second FIR and fresh investigation in respect of the same cognizable offence-Validity of-Held, power of investigation can be inteifered with. if the police officer transgresses his statut01y power-Registration of second FIR and fi·esh investigation pursuant thereto is beyond the purview of sections 154 and 156 and amounts to abuse of process of statut01y power of investigation-Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Sections 482, 154, 156. Commission of lnqui1y Act, 1952-Section 3(1)-Report of Commission of biqui1y-Nature of-Held, not binding on government or courts-However, investigating agency can adva.ntageously make use of such report. Words and Phrases F.l.R.·-Meaning of in the context of Section 154 of Criminal Procedure Code. 1973. During the Visit of a Minister belonging to ruling UDF Governm"ent of 942 ' - X... ~· i- '- ..... .. t i /'-- :. ';~ -! ~. ' -~ T.T. ANTONY v. ST ATE 943 Kerala to Kannur District, violent demonstrations were held by members of A -~ Y,Oµth wing of a rival political party (CPI(M)). To bring the situation under control, police resorted to firing and lathi charge, as a result of which five persons died and more than hundred persons suffered injuries. Two FIRs were lodged against several unidentifiable persons belonging to rival political party in respect of such incidents of violence at two places. On public demand, B State Government appointed an Inquiry Commission. In the meantime, ,- assembly elections were held in the State and LDF Government led by CPI (M) came to power. The Inquiry Commission submitted its report holding that ,x the police firing was unjustified and a former Minister, Dy. Superintendent of Police, Kannur and Dy. Collector Kannur were responsible for the incident. Government accepted the Inquiry Commission report and directions were c issued for taking legal action against those who were held guilty in the report. Director General of Police held that since the firing was without justification, in which people were killed, it amounted to murder, and ordered registration of case under the appropriate section. Thus, fresh F.I.R. was registered against the former Minister, the Dy. Superintendent of Police, D ·Kannur, the former Dy. Collector, Kannur and several other police personnel. Aggrieved, writ petitions were flied for quas~ing the F.I.R or alternatively for \ investigation of the case by C.B.I. Single Judge of High Court disposed of tlie writ petitions by directing re-investigation of the case by C.B.I. On appeal, Division Bench of High Court wLile quashing the F.I.R. against Dy. Superintendent of Police, directed fresh investigation of the case by State E Police instead of investigation by C.B.I. Hence the present appeal. On behalf of the appellants it was contended that second FIR was registered in respect of the same cognizable offence regarding which two FIRs were already filed and investigation in those cases were pending. Thus, y registration of a fresh information in respect of very same incident as an FIR F under Section 154 Cr.P.C. was not valid and, therefore, all steps taken pursuant thereto including investigation were illegal and liable to be quashed. ., . Disposing of the appeals, the Court .J HELD : 1.1. There can be no second FIR under Section 154 of the G ,.. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 in respect of very same cognizable offence and consequently there can be no fresh investigation pursuant thereto. Thus, _.,,( in the instant case, registration of second FIR regarding very same cognizable offence is
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.