Registration Of Second FIR On The Same Incident To Improve The Earlier Complaint Not Allowed : Karnataka High Court

Justice M Nagaprasanna, while quashing a second First Information Report registered against B. V. Byre Gowda, a Bharatiya Janata Party worker charged in 2018, under Sections 504, 332, 353 OF IPC by the Hoskote Police said, "Once having registered a complaint on a particular premise of an incident, it was not open to the complainant to have registered another complaint on the very same incident regarding what happened during the very same period."

It added, "The complainant cannot be permitted to improve on the earlier complaint and as an afterthought bring in other offences in the second complaint, becoming a second FIR on sameness. It would amount to permitting multiple FIRs on the very same - incident, time of the incident, date of the incident and by the very same complainant."

On April 18, 2018, the complainant Nisar Ahmed (Municipal Commissioner And Head Of Flying Squad For Election) had registered a complaint alleging that BJP had unauthorisedly put up a lot of buntings on the occasion of the arrival of Home Minister Amit Shah. Subsequently, the buntings put up unauthorisedly were ordered to be removed by a Health Inspector of the Municipality at Hoskote, Nusrat Banu.

However, it was alleged that the petitioner along with others abused the officers in filthy language and one Ashok physically assaulted the complainant. On the basis of this incident, two separate complaints were registered on the very same incident of removal of buntings by the very same complainant.

Senior advocate Sandesh J. Chouta and Advocate Karthik V appearing for the petitioner submitted that "Time of offence, place of offence and the incident which has triggered in registering the complaints, all of them happened between 6 a.m. and 9 a.m. Therefore, there can be only one complaint on this incident and there cannot be multiple complaints for a solitary incident. The complaint against the petitioner was for obstruction while removing buntings. This complaint was registered at 9 a.m. which became Crime No.223 of 2018. Another complaint was registered at 9.15 a.m. which became Crime No.224 of 2018, on the very same incident."

Further, he said, "It is not permissible in law as in terms of Section 154 Cr. P.C, which deals with registration of a complaint and an FIR, there can be only one FIR against one incident."

Advocate S.Balan appearing for the complainant/respondent No.1, submitted that two FIRs are permissible on two incidents as they are for different allegations – one which happened when the buntings were sought to be unauthorizedly put up incurring offences under the Representation of People Act or the Disfigurement Act. Staff/Officers were assaulted at 7.45 a.m. and this became a second FIR. That the period of the incident is the same, place of incident is the same and the complainant is the same but two complaints can be registered.

Court findings:

The court took into consideration the Apex court judgments in the following cases, T.T.Antony v. State Of Kerala And Others – (2001) 6 SCC 181, Babubhai v. State Of Gujarat And Others – (2010) 12 SCC 254; Surender Kaushik And Others v. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others –(2013) 5 SCC 148; Anju Chaudhary v. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Another – (2013) 6 SCC 384; P. Sree Kumar v. State Of Kerala And Others – (2018) 4 SCC 579; Arnab Ranjan Goswami v. Union Of India And Others – (2020) 14 SCC 12; And Krishna Lal Chawla v. State Of U.P - (2021) 5 SCC 435.

Relying on the above judgments the court said,

"If the law that is laid down by the Apex Court in the afore extracted Judgment is considered, what would unmistakably emerge is, registration of a second FIR on the same incident would be hit by the "doctrine of sameness".

It added,

"A counter-complaint is always permissible on the same incident as there can be complaints and two FIRs', if it is a case of complaint and counter complaint or a case of consequential complaint. These are not the facts in the case at hand. Therefore, without a shadow of doubt it would be hit by 'doctrine of sameness'."

Accordingly, it allowed the petition and said, "The proceedings instituted before the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division) & Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoskote, Bangalore Rural in Crime No.224 of 2018 registered at Hoskote Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 504, 332 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code stands quashed qua the petitioner."

Case Title: B. V. Byre Gowda And Nisar Ahmed

Case No: Criminal Petition No.3171/2018

Date Of Order: 20th Day Of September, 2021

Appearance: Senior Advocate Sandesh J.Chouta, A/W Advocate Karthik V For Petitioner.

Advocate S Balan For R1

Advocate Namitha Mahesh B.G, For R2

Click Here To Read/ Download Order