Multiple FIRs from the same broadcast are impermissible; CBI transfer requires exceptional necessity and fair-investigation grounds.

Multiple FIRs and complaints based on the same telecast were held impermissible under the sameness test, except for a true counter-complaint, and the duplicate proceedings were quashed. Transfer of the surviving investigation to the CBI was refused because such power is reserved for rare and exceptional cases where fairness and credibility of investigation clearly require it. The challenge to the transferred FIR was not entertained under Article 32, the petitioner being left to ordinary remedies under criminal procedure. The transferred FIR was clarified not to cover criminal defamation, which is governed by the special procedure under Section 199 CrPC. A later writ petition based on a different broadcast was also not entertained.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether multiple FIRs and complaints arising from the same telecast could be permitted to continue; (ii) whether the investigation of the transferred FIR should be shifted to the CBI; (iii) whether the Court should quash or decline to entertain the challenge to FIR 164 of 2020 under Article 32; (iv) whether the transferred FIR could sustain an allegation of criminal defamation; and (v) whether the subsequent writ petition based on a later FIR deserved entertainment.

Issue (i): whether multiple FIRs and complaints arising from the same telecast could be permitted to continue.

Analysis: The governing principle is that once information regarding a cognisable offence has been recorded, there can be no second FIR in respect of the same occurrence or same transaction, save in the case of a true counter-complaint. Applying the test of sameness, the later FIRs and complaints were found to be reproduced in identical or substantially identical terms and to arise from the same broadcast.

Conclusion: The multiple FIRs and complaints, other than the transferred FIR, were held not maintainable and were quashed in favour of the Petitioner.

Issue (ii): whether the investigation of the transferred FIR should be shifted to the CBI.

Analysis: Transfer to the CBI is an extraordinary power to be used sparingly and only in rare and exceptional circumstances where necessity is shown to secure a fair and credible investigation. The grounds urged, including the length of interrogation, the nature of questions, social media activity, and allegations against the local police, were held insufficient to meet that threshold. The accused has no right to dictate the investigating agency or the manner of investigation.

Conclusion: The prayer for transfer to the CBI was rejected.

Issue (iii): whether the Court should quash or decline to entertain the challenge to FIR 164 of 2020 under Article 32.

Analysis: The transferred FIR stood on a distinct footing from the quashed duplicate complaints. The Petitioner was relegated to the remedies available under the Code of Criminal Procedure before the competent forum, including the High Court, and no exceptional ground was made out to bypass that statutory route.

Conclusion: The Court declined to entertain the prayer for quashing FIR 164 of 2020 under Article 32 and left the Petitioner to pursue ordinary remedies in law.

Issue (iv): whether the transferred FIR could sustain an allegation of criminal defamation.

Analysis: Criminal defamation is governed by the special procedure under Section 199 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and a private complainant cannot set the criminal law in motion by FIR in the ordinary manner. The Court accepted the clarification that the transferred FIR would not cover the offence of criminal defamation.

Conclusion: The transferred FIR was held not to include criminal defamation, and the constitutional challenge to Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was not examined further in these proceedings.

Issue (v): whether the subsequent writ petition based on a later FIR deserved entertainment.

Analysis: The later FIR was founded on a different broadcast and did not arise from the same foundation as the first cluster of FIRs. The Court found no basis to invoke Article 32 in that petition.

Conclusion: The subsequent writ petition was dismissed with liberty to pursue remedies in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: The Court protected the Petitioner from the multiplicity of identical proceedings, refused to transfer the investigation to the CBI, preserved the investigation of the transferred FIR in Mumbai, and relegated the Petitioner to the statutory remedies available for the surviving prosecution.

Ratio Decidendi: Successive FIRs or complaints founded on the same occurrence are impermissible, but a transfer of investigation to an independent agency is justified only in rare and exceptional cases on a clear showing of necessity for a fair and credible investigation.

---