Source: https://www.lawweb.in/2017/07/when-second-fir-is-liable-to-be-quashed.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 09:56:15+00:00

Document:
Law Web: When second FIR is liable to be quashed?
The concept of 'sameness' has been given a restricted meaning. In order to examine the impact of one or more FIRs, the Court 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; and whether they are in regard to incidents which are two or more parts of the same transaction or relate completely to two distinct occurrences. It is only if the second FIR relates to the same cause of action, the same incident, there is sameness of occurrence and an attempt has been made to improvise the case, would the second FIR be liable to be quashed.
In such a case the court has to examine the facts and circumstances giving rise to both the FIRs and the test of sameness is to be applied to find out whether both the FIRs relate to the same incident in respect of the same occurrence or are in regard to the incidents which are two or more parts of the same transaction. If the answer is in the affirmative, the second FIR is liable to be quashed. However, in case, the contrary is proved, where the version in the second FIR is different and they are in respect of the two different incidents/crimes, the second FIR is permissible. In case in respect of the same incident the accused in the first FIR comes forward with a different version or counter claim, the investigation on both the FIRs has to be conducted. (see Babubhai).
(C) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to grant such other and further reliefs as may be deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court, in the interest of justice."
The petitioner was serving as Principal of Ambaji Arts College run by Shree Arasuri Ambaji Mata Devasthan Trust (for short 'the Trust'). The Trust is running Ambaji Arts and Commerce College, BCA College, etc. Ambaji Arts and Commerce college (for short 'the College') is also affiliated to Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Open University.
B. Petitioner has not approached this Hon'ble Court with clean hands.
As per the settled position of law, rival version in respect of same incident do take different shapes and in that event, lodgment of two FIRs is permissible. Counter FIR in respect of same or connected incident is permissible. Merely because the complainant lodged FIR against certain persons alleging fabrication of document and forgery, that would not debar other aggrieved persons from subsequently seeking Magistrate's direction under Sec. 156(#) for registration of FIR against some others including complainant relating to counter allegations. Subsequent counter FIR registered pursuant to Magistrate's direction u/s. 156(3)-Hence, not liable to be quashed.
It is also settled position of law that even where the police registering two FIRs and filing two final reports, is too technical a ground to quash charge."
ii. As per allegations, the sole object of the conspiracy of the present petitioner was to cheat the college and siphon off the funds either in pursuance to the allegations leveled in first FIR or in Second FIR. Thus, the different sets of facts (i.e. stated in first prosecution and second prosecution) are in furtherance of that very criminal intention and cannot be separated and thus, "same offence".
f. The issue was kept open as to whether to frame charge under the provisions of the PC Act in pursuance to first FIR/Charge sheet. However subsequently, while framing charge afresh (before Magistrate, the charge was framed and trial had proceeded), the Hon'ble Sessions Judge has also framed/added charge under the same provisions of PC Act as in second FIR/charge sheet. Copy of charge framed in both the FIR's/Charge sheets are supplied as AD-7 Colly. Therefore, the sessions Judge has prima facie believed sameness of offence alleged committed in the course of same transaction disclosed in both the FIRs.
b. As against this, petitioner has already suffered the consequences of detention for more than a period of three years in first FIR only because of the prosecution's case of it being a larger conspiracy including the set of facts/offences of second FIR.
a. Sec. 300(1) of Cr.P.C. makes it clear that "...... on the same facts for any other offence for which a different charge from one made against him might have been made under sub-section (1) of Sec. 221 or for which he might have been convicted under sub-section (2) thereof."
Thus, the test is not the different offence but, is "same facts". In criminal jurisprudence, same facts should be taken as criminal mind set giving rise to offence/s.
"Section 221: Where it is doubtful what offence has been committed.
(2) If in such a case the accused is charged with one offence, and it appears in evidence that he committed a different offence for which he might have been charged under the provisions of sub-section (1), he may be convicted of the offence which he is shown to have committed, although he was not charged with it".
"(i) MANU/SC/0131/2013 : (2013) 5 SCC 148 Surender Kaushik & Ors. v. State of UP & Ors.
The word 'transaction' is not intended to be interpreted in any artificial or technical sense; commonsense and ordinary use of language must decide whether on the facts of a particular case, one is concerned with one transaction or several transactions. In order that a series of acts be regarded as the same transaction, they must be connected together in some way as for instance by proximity of time, unity of place, unity or community of purpose or design and continuity of action. Proximity of time and unity of place are not essential though they furnish good evidence of what unites several acts. The main test must really be continuity of action by which is meant the following up of some initial act through all its consequences and incidents until the series of acts or group of connected acts come to an end either by attainment of the object or by being put an end to or abandoned, If any of these things happens and the whole process is begun over again it is not the same transaction but a new one in spite of the fact that the same general purpose may continue. The vinculum juris which interlinks a series of acts so intimately as to form the same transaction is different in each case, It may be proximity of time and place, or continuity of action, or community of purpose and design, or relation of cause and effect, or that of principal and subsidiary.
21. The law recognizes a common trial or a common FIR being registered for one series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction as contemplated under Section 220 Cr.P.C. The expression 'same transaction', from its very nature, is incapable of exact definition (Anju Chaudhary (supra); Mohan Baitha v. State of Bihar, MANU/SC/0217/2001 : (2001) 4 SCC 350). The distinction between two FIRs relating to the same incident, and two FIRs relating to different incidents or occurrences of the same incident, should be carefully examined (Babubhai v. State of Gujarat, MANU/SC/0643/2010 : (2010) 12 SCC 254). The merits of each case must be considered to determine whether a subsequently registered FIR is a second FIR relating to the same incident or offence or is based upon distinct and different facts and whether its scope of inquiry is entirely different or not. It will not be appropriate for the Court to lay down one straight jacket formula uniformly applicable to all cases. This will always be a mixed question of law and fact depending on the merits of a given case (Anju Chaudhary (supra)). The test, to determine whether two FIRs can be permitted to exist, is whether the two incidents are identical or not (Ram Lal Narang v. State (Delhi Administration), MANU/SC/0216/1979 : (1979) 2 SCC 322).
22. The concept of 'sameness' has been given a restricted meaning. In order to examine the impact of one or more FIRs, the Court 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; and whether they are in regard to incidents which are two or more parts of the same transaction or relate completely to two distinct occurrences. It is only if the second FIR relates to the same cause of action, the same incident, there is sameness of occurrence and an attempt has been made to improvise the case, would the second FIR be liable to be quashed. In cases where every FIR has a different spectrum, and the allegations made are distinct and separate, it may be regarded as a counter complaint, but it cannot be stated that an effort has been made to improve the allegations that find place in the first FIR or that the principle of 'sameness' is attracted. (Babubhai (supra); Surendra Kaushik v. State of Uttar Pradesh, MANU/SC/0131/2013 : 2013 Cri.L.J. 1570).
25. I find it extremely difficult to accept the vociferous submission canvassed on behalf of the applicant that since the modus operandi remained the same for the purpose of cheating there could not have been more than one FIR. I do not find any element of sameness'. In my view each of the transactions are distinct, thereby constituting distinct offences.
"A person who has once been tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction for an offence and convicted or acquitted of such offence shall, while such conviction or acquittal remains in force, not be liable to be tried again for the same offence, nor on the same facts for any other offence for which a different charge from the once made against him might have been made under Sub-Section (1) of Section 221, or for which he might have been convicted under Sub-Section (2) thereof."
"(2) A person acquitted or convicted of any offence may be afterwards tried, with the consent of the State Government for any distinct offence for which a separate charge might have been against him at the former trial under sub-section (1) of Section 220."
32. The true test by which the question whether such a plea is a sufficient bar in any particular case is whether the evidence necessary to support the second indictment would have been sufficient to procure illegal conviction upon the first. A trial is said to be upon the same facts if the evidence in the first case would have supported a conviction for the offences charged in the second case. It is a settled proposition of law that generally no accused shall be vexed with more than one trial for the offences arising out of the same set of facts.
"Where the accused was charge-sheeted in consequence of the seizure of various articles from his houses, though different articles were involved in different cases, the Magistrate gave accused the benefit of doubt in regard to the identity of the articles alleged to have been stolen and acquitted the accused in one of those cases it was held that it would not bar the trial in other case."
"43. It is true that law recognizes common trial or a common FIR being registered for one series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction as contemplated under Section 220 of the Code. There cannot be any straight jacket formula, but this question has to be answered on the facts of each case. This Court in the case of Mohan Baitha v. State of Bihar [MANU/SC/0217/2001 : (2001) 4 SCC 350], held that the expression 'same transaction' from its very nature is incapable of exact definition. It is not intended to be interpreted in any artificial or technical sense. Common sense in the ordinary use of language must decide whether or not in the very facts of a case, it can be held to be one transaction.
45. Similarly, for several offences to be part of the same transaction, the test which has to be applied is whether they are so related to one another in point of purpose or of cause and effect, or as principal and subsidiary, so as to result in one continuous action. Thus, where there is a commonality of purpose or design, where there is a continuity of action, then all those persons involved can be accused of the same or different offences "committed in the course of the same transaction"."
"10. It has to be seen that Sessions Case was registered as S.C. No. 537 of 2009 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge, Adoni in the year 2009. Similarly S.C. No. 63 of 2009 was registered on the file of II-Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Adoni in the year 2009, therefore, it is clear that petitioners herein, know very well about the pendency of these cases since 2009. Admittedly no petition or memo was filed before courts at Adoni i.e., either before II-Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Adoni or before Assistant Sessions Judge, Adoni to club both the cases together for conducting joint trial. It appears that accused never felt it necessary for conducting joint trial.
12. Thus, it is clear that the accused should specifically plead that if separate trial is conducted it may prejudicially affect their interest. Admittedly, no such applications have been filed before lower courts. Therefore, it has to be seen whether the petitioners, at this stage can seek joint trial ? The cause of action, according to the petitioners arose when the learned Sessions Judge, Kurnool passed orders on 28/10/2014. As seen from the correspondence between II-Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Adoni and the learned Sessions Judge, Kurnool, it is clear that the learned Sessions Judge has permitted the II-Additional Sessions Judge to take appropriate decision and proceed with the case in accordance with law. This means the earlier order issued by the Sessions Judge, Kurnool stands withdrawn. The docket orders dated 5/11/2014 to 17/11/2014 are not available.
Now in this case charges have been framed, trial commenced and no steps were taken to club both the cases together at the initial stage or atleast before commencement of trial. Now much water has flown. At this stage, it is not possible to club both cases together. Moreover, in view of the submissions of Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that learned Public Prosecutor conducting the case in S.C. No. 537 of 2009 has opined that S.C. No. 537 of 2009 may be withdrawn in view of conclusion of trial in S.C. No. 63 of 2009. Of course the withdrawal of case has to be done with the permission of the court. No useful purpose will be served by passing any orders in these revision petitions at this stage. The Police Officers conducting investigation should conduct proper investigation and take proper steps. Even otherwise when charges have to be framed or when arguments are being heard on charges, the concerned Public Prosecutor or the defence counsel or the learned Sessions Judges hearing the case should take appropriate steps at the initial stage to see that cases are clubbed or joint trials are conducted in similar circumstances."

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.