A cryptic phone call without complete information or containing part-information about the commission of a cognizable offence cannot always be treated as an FIR. This proposition has been accepted by this Court in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala-5 and Damodar v. State of Rajasthan-6. A mere message or a telephonic message which does not clearly specify the offence, cannot be treated as an FIR.

n Harjinder Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors., (1985) 1 SCC 422 the question was whether the Court should in the facts and circumstances of the case direct that the two cases should be tried together but not consolidated i.e. the evidence be recorded separately in both cases and they may be disposed of simultaneously except to the extent that the witnesses for the prosecution which are common to both may be examined in one case and their evidence be read as evidence in the other.

A cardinal question of public importance and one that is likely to arise more often than not in relation to the lodging of the First Information Report (FIR) with the aid of Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, ‘the Code’) or otherwise independently within the ambit of Section 154 of the Code is as to whether there can be more than one FIR in relation to the same incident or different incidents arising from the same occurrence.

Legal position is that there cannot be two FIRs against the same accused in respect of the same case. But when there are rival versions in respect of the same episode, they would normally take the shape of two different FIRs and investigation can be carried on under both of them by the same investigating agency. Even that apart, the report submitted by the Court styling it is as FIR No. 208 of 1998 need be considered as an information submitted to the Court regarding the new discovery made by the police during investigation that persons not named in FIR No. 135 are the real culprits. To quash the said proceeding merely on the ground that final report had been laid in FIR No. 135 is, to say the least, too technical. The ultimate object of every investigation is to find out whether the offences alleged have been committed and, if so who have committed it.

In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 5 read with Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No. 25 of 1946) the Central Government, with the consent of the State Government of Bihar, issued vide Home Department (Police Branch) Notification No.9/C.B.1-80-09/2020 HP-5101/Patna, Dated 4th August, 2020, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole State of Bihar

Failure of the prosecution to provide any explanation much less a plausible one shows that the investigating agency had no clue about the perpetrators of the crime at the time when it reached the spot or soon thereafter nor did anyone claim to have seen the assailants, for otherwise there was no reason why they could not be named and […]

He had barely covered six or seven steps when a person whose name I learnt later as Narayan Vinayak Godse, resident of Poona, stepped closer and fired three shots from a pistol at the Mahatma from barely 2 / 3 feet distance which hit the Mahatma in his stomach and chest and blood started flowing. Mahatma ji fell backwards, uttering “Raam – Raam”. The assailant was apprehended on the spot with the weapon.

Second FIR – filing another FIR in respect of the same incident having a different version of events is permissible. (Vide: Ram Lal Narang v. State (Delhi Admn.), AIR 1979 SC 1791; Sudhir and Ors., v. State of M.P. AIR 2001 SC 826; T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala and Ors., AIR 2001 SC 2637; Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash and Ors., AIR 2004 SC 4320; and Babubhai v. State of Gujarat and Ors., (2010) 12 SCC 254).

In connection with the Howrah Court violence, one Debasish Panja lodged an FIR by saying that he was abducted by advocates on 24.04.2019 at 5.00 PM and taken inside the Civil Court Complex. He was manhandled by the advocates and due to police intervention, his life was saved. By an FIR on the same day, the OC of Howrah Thana, Smt Rajarshri Dutta also mentioned as a reason for their intrusion in the court premises.

Recent Updates