No second FIR can be filed in respect of same cognizable offence or same occurrence giving rise to one or more cognizable offences: Delhi HC

feature-top

Read Judgment: Atir vs. State of NCT Delhi

Pankaj Bajpai

New Delhi, September 6, 2021: The Delhi High Court has ruled that there can be no second FIR and no fresh investigation in respect of the same cognizable offence or same occurrence giving rise to one or more cognizable offences.

The Single Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad observed that it is not possible to enunciate any formula of universal application for the purpose of determining whether two or more acts constitute the same transaction, and rather, such things are to be gathered from the circumstances of a given case indicating unity or proximity of time, continuity of action, commonality of purpose or design.

Where two incidents are of different times with involvement of different persons, there is no commonality and the purpose thereof different and they emerge out of different circumstances, it would not be possible for the court to take a view that they form a part of the same transaction and therefore, there could be a common FIR, added the Bench.

The observation came pursuant to lodging of four different FIRs with respect to an incident of fire that was stoked in a single dwelling in Maujpur Area, near Victor Public School, Delhi.

The background of the case was that all the FIRs pertained to one house where fire was started mischievously and was spread to immediate neighboring premises as well as floors of the same house. All the FIRs stated that the incident took place on a single date and monetary loss was caused to each of the complainants residing in parts of the buildings in the same compound.

After considering the arguments and evidence, Justice Prasad found that the FIRs stated that the arson was extinguished by the same fire brigade and the charge-sheet containing the site plan which showed that all the properties are part of the same premises or they are in very close proximity with one another.

A careful perusal of the site map of the incident showed that a mob entered the compound where the properties were situated, ransacked it and set it ablaze, noted the Bench.

Justice Prasad further noted that the places which had been set on fire and looted were all in the same compound and were enclosed in one boundary wall.

There might be discrepancy regarding the width of the passage within the same compound or the exact place where the fire was set but both sides agreed that it was within one compound, added Justice Prasad. 

The complainant in FIR No.113/2020 himself has stated that the property is an ancestral property which has been subdivided pursuant to a family arrangement. The entire incident has occurred when the mob entered the compound and set fire at different places within the same compound. Same truck bearing unique No.926225 came to the spot to douse the fire”, observed the Bench.

The High Court therefore said that there were no five separate incidents and, therefore, five separate FIRs could not be registered for the very same incident as it is contrary to the laws laid down by the Supreme Court.

Highlighting that the incidents were not separate or the offences were not different, the High Court quashed three FIRs out of four, noting charge-sheets being identical and the accused being the same.

Add a Comment