2010 (8) TMI 892 - SC - Indian Laws

Second FIR quashed for same incident at same location under test of sameness principle

BABUBHAI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

The SC upheld the HC's decision to quash the second FIR, finding both FIRs related to the same incident occurring at the same location within close ... Scope of Section 154 CrPC - Validity of Clubbing of the investigation of the two FIRs - FIRs have two separate incidents at two different places and for distinct offences - two conspiracies were identical or not - Allegations of biased and unfair investigation - HELD THAT:- The law on the subject emerges to the effect that an FIR under Section 154 CrPC is a very important document. It is the first information of a cognizable offence recorded by the Officer In-Charge of the Police Station. It sets the machinery of criminal law in motion and marks the commencement of the investigation which ends with the formation of an opinion under Section 169 or 170 CrPC, as the case may be, and forwarding of a police report under Section 173 CrPC. Thus, it is quite possible that more than one piece of information be given to the Police Officer In- charge of the Police Station in respect of the same incident involving one or more than one cognizable offences. In such a case, he need not enter each piece of information in the Diary. All other information given orally or in writing after the commencement of the investigation into the facts mentioned in the First Information Report will be statements falling under Section 162 Cr.P.C. In such a case the court has to examine the facts and circumstances giving rise to both the FIRs and the test of sameness is to be applied to find out whether both the FIRs relate to the same incident in respect of the same occurrence or are in regard to the incidents which are two or more parts of the same transaction. If the answer is affirmative, the second FIR is liable to be quashed. However, in case, the contrary is proved, where the version in the second FIR is different and they are in respect of the two different incidents/crimes, the second FIR is permissible. In case in respect of the same incident the accused in the first FIR comes forward with a different version or counter claim, investigation on both the FIRs has to be conducted. If we examine minutely the FIR in C.R. No.I-155/2008, the incident also occurred near the pond in the village Dhedhal. The damaged tractor, motor cycle and chhakda were there in the pond. One person Ajitbhai Prahladbhai was killed in the incident. Babubhai Popatbhai Koli Patel also got injured. While comparing both the FIRs there is no doubt that both the incidents had occurred at the same place in close proximity of time, therefore, they are two parts of the same transaction. More so, the death of Ajitbhai Prahladbhai has been mentioned in both the FIRs. From the report for deletion of Section 302 IPC, it is apparent that it is not the case of the Investigating Officer that the death of Ajitbhai Prahladbhai had not occurred during the course of the incident in connection with which C.R. No.I-154 of 2008 came to be registered. It is also evident that houses of the Bharwads were inside the village in contiguous areas and the offence had spread over the entire area as is evident from the panchnama of the scene of offence drawn in C.R. No.I-155 of 2008 as well as from the contents of the said FIR. Same situation regarding the place of occurrence appears from the panchnama of the scene of incident in C.R. No. I-154/2008. Panchnama of the scene of incident of C.R. No.I-154/2008 includes the scene of occurrence of C.R. No.I-155/2008 which makes it clear that both the FIRs pertain to the two crimes committed in the same transaction. The scene of offence panchnamas establish clearly that the incidents in both the cases could not be distinct and independent of each other. In fact, it is nobody's case that incident relating to CR No.I-155/08 occurred at Dhedhal Chokdi (Cross-Roads). Thus, we are of the considered opinion that the High Court reached the correct conclusion and second FIR C.R. I-155/2008 was liable to be quashed. Tainted Investigation In the instant case, admittedly, the High Court has given detailed reasons for coming to the conclusion that the investigation has been totally one-sided, biased and mala fide. One party has been favoured by the investigating agency. The natural corollary to this finding is that the other party has been harassed in an unwarranted manner. Thus, the cause of the other party has been prejudiced. The charge sheets filed by the investigating agency in both the cases are against the same set of accused. A charge sheet is the outcome of an investigation. If the investigation has not been conducted fairly, we are of the view that such vitiated investigation cannot give rise to a valid charge sheet. Such investigation would ultimately prove to be precursor of miscarriage of criminal justice. In such a case the court would simply try to decipher the truth only on the basis of guess or conjunctures as the whole truth would not come before it. It will be difficult for the court to determine how the incident took place wherein three persons died and so many persons including the complainant and accused got injured. Not only the fair trial but fair investigation is also part of constitutional rights guaranteed under Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, investigation must be fair, transparent and judicious as it is the minimum requirement of rule of law. Investigating agency cannot be permitted to conduct an investigation in tainted and biased manner. Where non- interference of the court would ultimately result in failure of justice, the court must interfere. Thus, the appeals are disposed of with the modification of the order of the High Court to the extent explained hereinabove. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED- Whether two FIRs registered in respect of the incidents involving the Bharwad and Koli Patel communities pertain to the same transaction or distinct transactions, and whether the second FIR was liable to be quashed.- Whether the investigation conducted by the police in both FIRs was fair, impartial, and free from malafide and bias.- Whether the High Court was justified in transferring the investigation to the State CID Crime Branch and in quashing one of the FIRs while directing that accused named therein face trial under the other FIR.- The legal principles governing registration of multiple FIRs in respect of the same or connected incidents and the scope of court's interference in investigation under Sections 154, 156, 162, 173, and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).- The constitutional mandate of fair investigation and fair trial under Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue 1: Whether the two FIRs relate to the same incident or transaction and the permissibility of quashing the second FIRRelevant legal framework and precedents:The Court referred extensively to precedents including Ram Lal Narang v. Om Prakash Narang, T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash, Rameshchandra Nandlal Parikh v. State of Gujarat, and Nirmal Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab. These cases establish principles on the registration of multiple FIRs: whether two FIRs relate to the same cognizable offence or the same occurrence giving rise to one or more cognizable offences; whether they are parts of the same transaction; and the permissibility of multiple FIRs or the quashing of subsequent FIRs under Section 482 Cr.P.C.The Court emphasized that if two FIRs pertain to the same incident or are parts of the same transaction, the second FIR is liable to be quashed. However, if the FIRs relate to distinct incidents or different versions (including counter claims), both FIRs can be maintained and investigated.Court's interpretation and reasoning:On examining the facts, the Court found that both FIRs pertained to incidents occurring on the same day, in the same village (Dhedhal), and in close temporal and spatial proximity. Both FIRs mentioned the death of Ajitbhai Prahladbhai and injuries to members of the Koli Patel community. The panchnamas of the scenes of offence overlapped, with the area of occurrence being contiguous. The Court rejected the contention that the incidents occurred at two different places (Dhedhal Chokdi and village pond) as the evidence showed the incidents were interlinked parts of the same violent episode.Application of law to facts:Applying the test of 'sameness' of incident and transaction, the Court held that the second FIR (CR No.I-155/2008) was not a separate transaction but part of the same occurrence as the first FIR (CR No.I-154/2008). Therefore, the High Court was correct in quashing the second FIR and clubbing the investigation.Treatment of competing arguments:The appellant argued that the FIRs involved different incidents and distinct offences, with different victims and accused, and thus could not be clubbed. The Court found these arguments unconvincing in light of the evidence and the overlapping facts and location.Conclusion:The second FIR was liable to be quashed as it related to the same transaction and occurrence as the first FIR.Issue 2: Whether the investigation was fair, impartial, and free from malafide or bias and the consequences thereofRelevant legal framework and precedents:The Court referred to several landmark judgments emphasizing the constitutional right to fair investigation and trial under Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution. It relied on R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma, Navinchandra N. Majithia v. State of Meghalaya, Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi), Kashmeri Devi v. Delhi Administration, and others. These cases underscore the duty of the Investigating Officer to conduct impartial, unbiased, and transparent investigations, avoiding fabrication or malafide conduct.Court's interpretation and reasoning:The High Court had recorded detailed findings of fact that the investigation was one-sided and biased in favor of one community (Koli Patels) to the detriment of the other (Bharwads). It was observed that:Statements of witnesses from only one community were recorded, excluding the other community entirely.Many accused named in the charge-sheet had no evidential basis or were not named by any witness.Injuries to members of the Bharwad community were not reflected in the charge-sheet despite evidence of such injuries.There was over-action against one community and inaction against the other.Some accused were shown as absconding in one FIR but appeared as witnesses in another, indicating irregularities.Deletion of the offence of murder (Section 302 IPC) from the first FIR was unwarranted.The Court agreed with the High Court's conclusion that the investigation was not fair and impartial, and that the investigating agency had acted with malafide and bias, thereby prejudicing one party and causing miscarriage of justice.Application of law to facts:The Court held that such vitiated investigation cannot give rise to a valid charge-sheet and would be a precursor to miscarriage of justice. It emphasized that investigation must be judicious, fair, transparent, and expeditious to uphold the rule of law and constitutional guarantees.Treatment of competing arguments:None of the counsel challenged the findings of bias and unfairness in the investigation; all conceded the investigation was not conducted properly.Conclusion:The investigation was tainted, biased, and malafide, and therefore the charge-sheets arising from such investigation could not stand. The Court held that fair investigation is part of the constitutional right to life and liberty.Issue 3: Whether the High Court's order transferring investigation to State CID Crime Branch and quashing one FIR while directing accused to face trial under the other FIR was justifiedRelevant legal framework and precedents:The Court referred to Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. which allows further investigation but not re-investigation, and to precedents such as Kashmeri Devi v. Delhi Administration, which authorize transfer of investigation to an independent agency where the original investigation is unfair or biased. The Court also noted that ordinarily courts should not interfere with investigations unless there is mala fide or gross abuse of power.Court's interpretation and reasoning:The High Court had rightly transferred the investigation to the State CID Crime Branch due to the biased and unfair nature of the original investigation. However, the Supreme Court found the High Court's direction that accused arrested in connection with the quashed FIR (CR No.I-155/2008) would stand arrested in connection with the other FIR (CR No.I-154/2008) to be untenable, as the quashing of an FIR ordinarily discharges the accused of offences therein unless fresh incriminating material is found during further investigation.The Court clarified that the charge sheets filed pursuant to the tainted investigation stand quashed, and fresh investigation by an independent agency should be conducted de novo. It also clarified that accused previously arrested in connection with the quashed FIR do not automatically stand arrested in the other FIR.Application of law to facts:The Court modified the High Court's order to the extent that both charge sheets and any consequential orders stand quashed, and fresh investigation is to be conducted independently. The Court further directed that bail applications pending due to these appeals be decided expeditiously.Treatment of competing arguments:The Court found no merit in the High Court's direction to treat accused arrested under the quashed FIR as arrested under the other FIR, as it conflicted with the principle that quashing an FIR discharges accused unless further evidence emerges.Conclusion:The transfer of investigation to an independent agency was justified; however, the charge sheets and consequential orders arising from the tainted investigation were quashed, and fresh investigation was ordered. The accused arrested under the quashed FIR do not automatically remain under arrest in the other case.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS- 'If the two FIRs pertain to the same incident or are parts of the same transaction, the second FIR is liable to be quashed.'- 'An FIR under Section 154 Cr.P.C. is a very important document. It sets the machinery of criminal law in motion and marks the commencement of investigation.'- 'The investigation into a criminal offence must be free from objectionable features or infirmities which may legitimately lead to a grievance on the part of the accused that investigation was unfair and carried out with an ulterior motive.'- 'The Investigating Officer is not to bolster up a prosecution case with such evidence as may enable the court to record conviction but to bring out the real unvarnished truth.'- 'Fair investigation and fair trial are concomitant to preservation of the fundamental right of the accused under Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India.'- 'Where the court comes to the conclusion that the investigation has been totally one-sided, biased and mala fide, such investigation cannot give rise to a valid charge sheet and would be precursor of miscarriage of criminal justice.'- 'The scheme of investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. provides for further investigation and not re-investigation. However, in exceptional circumstances, the court may direct investigation de novo to prevent miscarriage of justice.'- 'Quashing of an FIR ordinarily discharges the accused of offences therein unless fresh incriminating material is discovered during further investigation.'- 'The High Court's order transferring investigation to the State CID Crime Branch was justified but the direction that accused arrested in connection with the quashed FIR would stand arrested in the other FIR was untenable and modified accordingly.'