In an interesting judgment in Pramod Kumar vs. State of Jharkhand reported in 2024(1) JLJR 410 , the Jharkhand High Court has held that registration of multiple F.I.Rs for the same offence between the same parties is an abuse of process of law.
An F.I.R. was registered u/ss.409, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 34 I.P.C. A Criminal Original Petition was filed by the accused for quashing the same before the Jharkhand High Court.
The facts of the case in the F.I.R. of Daily Market P.S. Case No.34 of 2020 has been registered on 10.12.2020 alleging that while the petitioner was posted as Sub-Post Master in the OCC Post Office from July, 2018 to March 2020, he was involved in committing criminal breach of trust by sanctioning loan in 74 (seventy four) different R.D. Accounts amounting to Rs. 25,53,400/- in furtherance of common intention with Smt. Suman Agrawal, MPKBY, her representative Shri. Shubham Gupta and Sri. Chitranjan Kumar the then SPM, OCC.
Another F.I.R. was registered in Kotwali P.S. in Case No.99 of 2020 by the accused in Case No.34 of 2020 in Daily Market P.S. showing a different lesser amount. The High Court on hearing the rival submissions, observed that on perusal of both the F.I.Rs. i.e., the F.I.R. of Kotwali P.S. Case No.99 of 2020 and the F.I.R. of Daily Market P.S. Case No.34 of 2020 reveal that in Kotwali P.S. Case No.99 of 2020; Suman Agrawal is the informant who has been cited as an accused in the said Daily Market P.S. Case No.34 of 2020. In the F.I.R. of Kotwali P.S. Case No.99 of 2020, Suman Agrawal has made the self-same allegation alleging illegal withdrawal of money from the R.D. Account holders to the tune of Rs. 29,62,400/- but in the F.I.R. of Daily Market P.S. Case No.34 of 2020, only a lesser sum of Rs. 25,53,400/- is alleged to have been sanctioned by the petitioner. In Kotwali P.S. Case No.99 of 2020, the petitioner has not been cited as an accused in the formal F.I.R. but during the course of the investigation, his involvement is found out then he can be arrayed as an accused in that case also. In Kotwali P.S. Case No.99 of 2020, besides the aforesaid amount of Rs. 29,62,400/-, further illegal withdrawal to the tune of Rs. 22,11,320/- has also been alleged. It is a settled principle of law as has been, inter alia, held by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Tarak Dash Mukharjee & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 2121 which held that, if multiple First Information Reports by the same person against the same accused are permitted to be registered in respect of the same set of facts and allegations, it will result in the accused getting entangled in multiple criminal proceedings for the same alleged offence. Therefore, the registration of such multiple FIRs is nothing but abuse of the process of law. Moreover, the act of the registration of such successive FIRs on the same set of facts and allegations at the instance of the same informant will not stand the scrutiny of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. The settled legal position on this behalf has been completely ignored by the High Court” and as per this observation, the Jharkhand High Court held that if multiple First Information Reports by the same person against the same accused are permitted to be registered in respect of the same set of facts and allegations, it will result in the accused getting entangled in multiple criminal proceedings for the same alleged offence. Therefore, the registration of such multiple FIRs is nothing but abuse of the process of law.
Now, after going through the materials available in the record, the Jharkhand Court was of the considered view that the F.I.R. of Daily Market P.S. Case No.34 of 2020 is the second F.I.R. in respect of the same occurrence for which Kotwali P.S. Case No.99 of 2020 has been registered much prior to the registration of the said Daily Market P.S. Case No.34 of 2020. The High Court citing the judgment of the Supreme Court at Para 17 in Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash & others reported in (2004) 13 SCC 292 (extracted below)
“17. It is clear from the words emphasised herein above in the above quotation, this Court in the case of T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala [(2001) 6 SCC 181 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 1048] has not excluded the registration of a complaint in the nature of a counter-case from the purview of the Code. In our opinion, this Court in that case only held that any further complaint by the same complainant or others against the same accused, subsequent to the registration of a case, is prohibited under the Code because an investigation in this regard would have already started and further complaint against the same accused will amount to an improvement on the facts mentioned in the original complaint, hence will be prohibited under Section 162 of the Code. This prohibition noticed by this Court, in our opinion, does not apply to counter complaint by the accused in the first complaint or on his behalf alleging a different version of the said incident.”
Following the above principle laid down by the Supreme Court, the Jharkhand High Court has held in this case, that the registration of the second F.I.R. for the self-same occurrence is prohibited and this Court is of the considered view that the continuation of the F.I.R. of Daily Market P.S. Case No.34 of 2020 and all other further proceedings in relation to the said case which is now pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi will tantamount to abuse of process of law and in the interest of justice the said F.I.R. of Daily Market P.S. Case No.34 of 2020 and all other further proceedings in relation to the said case which is now pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi which is the second case in respect of the self-same occurrence, be quashed and set aside.