The Supreme Court of India on 19^th March, 2018 in P. Sreekumar v. State of Kerala& Ors,set aside the order of the High Court quashing the Second FIR/ chargesheet filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. While deciding the question as to whether a“second FIR in respect of the same accused for a same offence is liable to be quashed?” the two-judge bench comprising of Justice RK Agarwal and Justice AM Sapre, opined that:

“…there is no prohibition in law to file the second FIR and that once such an FIR is filed, it will be capable of being taken note of and would be tried on merits in accordance of law.”

The facts revolving around the case involve the First FIR being filed against 5 accused persons i.e., the appellant, respondent no. 3 and three bank officials for offences punishable under sections 408, 409, 420, 467, 468, 473, 477 r/w section 34 of the IPC, 1860. Thereafter, a Second FIR was filed against respondent no. 3 by the appellant for offences under sections 406, 409, 465 and 471 IPC, 1860, pursuant to which said accused in the Second FIR was arrested and later enlarged on bail. As a result of the two FIRs, respondent no. 3 filed an application before the High Court of Kerala seeking to quash the Second FIR contending that he cannot be made to face two trials on the same set of facts and for the same offences in two different courts, in pursuance of which the High Court quashed the Second FIR and chargesheet thereto. Thus, the appellant feeling aggrieved by the dismissal of his petition filed two SLPs in the Supreme Court of which 1 was dismissed as having become infructuous during its pendency and the other admitted as the present SLP against the order of the High Court which quashed the Second FIR.

Even though the Single Judge of the High Court placed reliance on decisions made by this court and then subsequently quashed the FIR, the Apex Court stated that:

“The High Court had committed jurisdictional error on quashing the subsequent FIR/ chargesheet, which was filed at the instance of the appellant against respondent no. 3 without adverting to the law on the subject…The law on the subject is no more res integra and settled by the decision of this court in the case reported in Upkar Singh v. VedPrakash&Ors.

 The Supreme Court had relied on the principle underlined in the case of SurenderKaushik&Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors, wherein the two-judge bench had stated that:

“..lodgment of two FIRs is not permissible is respect of one and the same incident. The concept of sameness has been given a restricted meaning. It does 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 registration of the case under the Code…”

Thus, applying the abovesaid principle, the Apex Court gave the following reasons for setting aside the order of the High Court quashing the Second FIR:

1. The Second FIR was not filed by the same person, who had filed the First FIR, and
2. It was filed by the appellant as a counter-claim against the respondent/ accused, and
3. The First FIR was based on one set of allegations different from the allegations made in the Second FIR, and
4. The High Court did not examine the issue arising in the case in the light of law laid down by the Apex Court in the two aforementioned cases of Upkar Singh and SurenderKaushik.

The Supreme Court giving its final directions and observations allowed the appeal and restored the case to its file for being tried on merits in accordance with law.

By Mehr Kaur