Source: Allahabad High Court 

Why in News?

Recently, the Allahabad High Court in the matter of Sangeeta Mishra v. State of U.P. and 6 Others has held that a second First Information Report (FIR) is permissible when it has different version of discoveries and evidence found in the same case for which the first FIR was filed.  

What was the Background of Sangeeta Mishra v. State of U.P. and 6 Others Case? 

• In the present case, FIR was filed under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). 
• It was alleged that a burnt dead body of one unknown person was found and through the postmortem report it was found that the death was done by throttling and to destroy the evidence the body was burnt. 
• After investigation by the police officer the body was identified by the applicant and her son, and a missing report was already filed by them before the incident. 
• It was stated that the father-in-law of the applicant executed family settlement regarding his property and divided share of their sons which was not within the knowledge of the applicant or her husband. 
• A dispute arose among the husband of the applicant, father-in-law, Jeth and Devar, thus a legal notice was sent by mother-in-law of the applicant to the applicant for compliance of condition of family settlement. 
• To resolve the aforesaid dispute, one Chandra Mohan (brother-in-law of the applicant) came to her husband and accordingly, the applicant's husband went along with him. 
• When the husband did not return the applicant searched for him but could not find him. 
• The police ignored the applicant’s request to register a missing complaint, and, in the meantime, the present case was filed against the applicant. 
• After filing the chargesheet the applicant was arrested and sent to jail. After her release the applicant moved an application under Section 156(3) the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). 
• The trial court rejected the application without considering that the FIR for the murder of the husband of the applicant has already been registered for which the applicant was already held guilty. 
• The revision application was also rejected without considering the fact that the real culprits are still unnoticed. 
• Aggrieved by all these decisions the applicant preferred the present appeal before the Allahabad High Court. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Allahabad High Court in this case observed that: 
  • There cannot be two FIRs against the same accused based on the same case. 
  • When a case has rival versions of each other than two FIRs may be filed for the same and Police can investigate under both the FIRs. 
  • When the first FIR does not cover the ambit of the second FIR, then the Second FIR would be permissible. 
• The Allahabad High Court, therefore, set aside the order of the Trial Court and remanded back to settle the case based on a settled position of law. 

What is FIR? 

About: 

• Section 173 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) states the provisions related to Information in cognizable cases. 
• Earlier it was covered under Section 154 of CrPC. 
• It is commonly known as the FIR though this term is not used in the Code. As its nickname suggests, it is the earliest and the first information of a cognizable offence recorded by an officer in charge of a police station.  

Objectives: 

• The main objective of the FIR is to set the criminal law in motion and to obtain information about the alleged criminal activity and to obtain true or nearly true versions of the events connected with a crime. 
• It provides a check on the undesirable tendency on the part of the prosecution to fill the gaps on their own. 
• To safeguard the accused against subsequent variations or additions. 

Essentials: 

• It is an information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence. 
• It is given by the informant either orally or in writing. 
• If given oral, it should be reduced to writing by the officer in charge of a police station or under his direction and if given in writing or reduced to writing shall be signed by the person giving it. 
• The information reduced in writing must be read out to the informant and a copy thereof should be given to the informant forthwith free of cost. 
• The substance of the information shall be entered in a book in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf. This book is called General Diary. 

Contents: 

• It need not contain each and every minute incident that occurred. 
• It requires only the substance of information received to be mentioned and the same cannot be said to be the repository of every factum. 

Evidentiary Value of FIR: 

• The established principle of law that FIR cannot be assumed as a substantive piece of evidence and can only be considered as an important piece of evidence. 
• It can neither be used against the maker at the trial if he himself becomes an accused nor to corroborate or contradict other witnesses. 
• It can only be used for certain limited purposes such as: 
  • FIR is proved by the prosecution for the purpose of corroborating the statement of the maker. It can also be used to contradict the first informant. 
  • It can be used to show that the implication of the accused in the case was not an afterthought. 
  • Where FIR can be tendered in evidence as a part of the conduct of the informant, it can be used as substantive evidence. 
  • It the informant dies, and the FIR contains a statement as to the cause of his death or the circumstances relating to his death, it may be used as substantive evidence.

Landmark Judgements:

• Ram Lal Narang v. State (Delhi Admn.) (1979): 
  • The Court in this case opined that the second FIR would be maintainable where new discovery is made on factual foundations about a larger conspiracy.
• Kari Choudhary v. Mst. Sita Devi and others. (2002): 
  • The Supreme Court in this case held 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.
• Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash and others (2004): 
  • In this case the Supreme Court held that second complaint in regard to same incident filed as counter-complaint is not prohibited under CrPC, if in regard to a crime committed by real accused he takes the first opportunity to lodge a false complaint and the same is registered by the jurisdictional police then the aggrieved victim of such crime will be precluded from lodging a complaint giving his version of the incident in question, consequently he will be deprived of his legitimated right to bring the real accused to book.
• Nirmal Singh Kahlon (2009): 
  • In this case it was observed that the second FIR, would be maintainable not only because there were different versions but when new discovery is made on factual foundations.
• Babu Bhai v. State of Gujarat and others (2010): 
  • In this case it was observed that in case of a subsequent FIR, 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 same occurrence or in regard to the incident which are two or more parts of the same transaction. 
  •  In case where the version in the second FIR is different and they are in respect of two different incidents, the second FIR is permissible. 
  • It was also observed that an FIR pertaining to a counterclaim in respect to the same incident having a different version of events, is permissible.
• Anju Chaudhary v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another (2013): 
  • In this case it was held that that second FIR in respect of same offence or incident forming part of same transaction as contained in first FIR, is not permissible but, where, the offence does not fall within the ambit of first FIR, the second FIR would be permissible. 
  • The test of sameness to be applied.
• Awadesh Kumar Jha alias Akhilesh Kumar Jha and another v. State of Bihar (2016): 
  • In this case it was held that substance of allegations in the second FIR are different from first FIR and related to different transaction, case arising out of second FIR survives.