Complainant Filing Multiple FIRs on Same Facts Violates Accused's Fundamental Rights Under Articles 21, 22: Kerala High Court
Pranav B Prem
The Kerala High Court has reaffirmed that the registration of multiple First Information Reports (FIRs) by the same complainant against the same accused on same set of allegations constitutes an abuse of legal processes and infringes upon fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 22 of the Indian Constitution.
Key Observations
Justice A. Badharudeen emphasized that permitting multiple FIRs on the same set of facts leads to multiple criminal proceedings against the accused for the same offenses. The Court held that while an additional FIR may be valid if it pertains to a distinct offense, duplicative FIRs on the same allegations are impermissible. The judgment stated: "Registration of such multiple FIRs is an abuse of process of law and would not withstand the scrutiny of Articles 21 and 22. In such scenarios, only the first FIR should proceed, and subsequent FIRs must be quashed. However, FIRs for entirely different offenses by the same complainant against the same accused are within the law and cannot be quashed."
Facts of the Case
The case involved two FIRs lodged by the same complainant against the accused for disclosing the identity of a rape victim through Facebook posts:
-
First FIR: Registered in 2022 at the Cyber Police Station, Ernakulam, alleging offenses under Section 23(4) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses (POCSO) Act and Section 228A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The final report was submitted in February 2023.
-
Second FIR: Filed in 2023 at Kadakkal Police Station, Kollam, alleging violations of Sections 228A and 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Sections 23 and 17 of the POCSO Act for disclosures through Facebook in March 2023.
The accused sought to quash the second FIR, asserting that it arose from the same allegations as the first.
Arguments Presented
-
For the Accused: It was contended that both FIRs arose from a single occurrence, rendering the second FIR unlawful. Citing precedents, the counsel argued that registering multiple FIRs for the same incident entangles the accused in redundant criminal proceedings.
-
For the Complainant: The complainant argued that the FIRs addressed distinct instances of disclosure occurring at different times (2022 and 2023). It was further contended that crimes occurring during separate periods constituted distinct offenses warranting separate FIRs.
Court’s Analysis
The Court delineated the distinction between permissible and impermissible multiple FIRs:
-
Multiple FIRs based on the same allegations violate Articles 21 and 22.
-
Separate FIRs are valid when they pertain to distinct offenses occurring at different times.
In this case, the Court found that the 2023 FIR involved disclosures separate from those in 2022. Therefore, the second FIR was held legally sustainable, as it pertained to a distinct and independent offense.
Verdict
The High Court dismissed the accused's plea to quash the FIRs, concluding that both cases warranted trial due to the prima facie evidence of offenses. It reiterated the need for legal scrutiny to ensure that accused persons are not subjected to redundant and unlawful proceedings.
Cause Title: Gargian Sudheeran v State of Kerala & Ors
Case No: Crl.MC No. 4154 of 2024 & other case
Date: January-13-2025
Bench: Justice A. Badharudeen
[Read/Download oerder]
