Introduction 

• This is a landmark judgment which lays down that that the law on filing FIR on the same facts. 
• The Judgment was delivered by a 2- judge consisting of Justice JC Shah and Justice KS Hegde. 

Facts   

• An incident occurred in Kuthuparamba (Kerala) on November 25, 1994, resulting in police firing that killed five persons and injured many others. 
• The incident involved Minister M.V. Raghavan, who had broken away from CPI(M) to form Communist Marxist Party (CMP) and became a minister in the UDF government. 
•  CPI(M)'s youth wing (DYFI) had been attempting to prevent Raghavan's visits to Kannur District, with a previous incident involving bombs hurled at him in January 1993. 
• Despite security concerns, Raghavan insisted on visiting Kuthuparamba to inaugurate an evening branch of a Co-operative Urban Bank. 
• Police firing occurred at two locations: 
  • Near the town hall (ordered by Executive Magistrate and Deputy SP) 
  • Near Kuthuparamba police station (ordered by Superintendent of Police) 
• Two FIRs were registered immediately after the incident (25th November, 1994): 
  • Crime No.353/94 against CPI(M) members for offenses including unlawful assembly 
  • Crime No.354/94 against unidentifiable CPI(M) persons 
• A Commission of Inquiry headed by K. Padmanabhan Nair was appointed on January 20, 1995, by the UDF government to investigate the incident. 
• After LDF (led by CPI(M)) came to power in 1996, the Commission submitted its report on May 27, 1997, finding: 
  • The police firing was not justified 
  • M.V. Raghavan, Deputy SP Abdul Hakkim Bathery, and Deputy Collector T.T. Antony were responsible 
• Based on the Commission's report, a third FIR (Crime No.268/97) was registered on 4th July, 1997, charging Raghavan, Bathery, and Antony under Section 302 IPC (murder). 
• The original two FIRs against CPI(M) workers were later closed as false and undetected (April-June 1999). 
• Legal challenges were filed against the new FIR, with conflicting High Court judgments about whether the investigation should be handled by CBI or state police. 
• A key legal question arose regarding the validity of registering a second FIR (Crime No.268/97) for the same incident three years after the original FIRs were filed. 

Issue Involved  

• Whether registration of fresh case which is in the nature of second First Information Report (FIR) under Section 154 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) is valid and can it form the basis of fresh investigation?   

Observation 

• Regarding FIR the Court made the following observations: 
  • The Court held that FIR sets the criminal law into motion and marks the commencement of the investigation which ends up with the formation of opinion under Section 169 or 170 of CrPC, as the case may be, and forwarding of a police report under Section 173 of CrPC. 
  • The Court further, observed that apart from the vague information by a phone call or a cryptic telegram, the information first entered in the station house diary, kept for this purpose, by a police officer in charge of a police station is the FIR postulated by Section 154 of CrPC.
• The Court held that all the other statements made after the commencement of investigation shall fall under Section 162 of CrPC and no information/ statement can be treated as FIR.   
• The Court held that a second FIR cannot be registered for the same cognizable offense or incident. Once an initial FIR is filed, all subsequent information about the same incident should be treated as part of the original investigation. 
• The Police officers must investigate not only the specific offense reported in the FIR but also other connected offenses committed during the same transaction or occurrence. 
• If two FIRs (first and second) contain essentially the same charges, registering the second FIR and conducting a fresh investigation is irregular, and courts cannot take cognizance of it. 
• The Court held that High Courts (under Section 482 CrPC or Articles 226/227 of Constitution) and the Supreme Court can intervene to prevent investigation abuses or secure justice. 
• The Court observed that cases involving fresh investigations based on successive FIRs (not counter-cases) for the same cognizable offense may warrant judicial intervention under Section 482 CrPC or Articles 226/227. 
• The registration of Crime No.268/97 at Kuthuparamba Police Station based on the DGP's letter was ruled invalid, and the subsequent investigation was quashed. 
• This ruling doesn't prevent investigators from seeking court permission to conduct further investigation in the original cases (Crime No.353/94 and 354/94) under Section 173(8) CrPC. 
• The court upheld the High Court's judgment quashing Crime No.268/97 against the Assistant Superintendent of Police. 

Conclusion 

• This is a landmark judgment which lays down that that the law on filing FIR on the same facts. 
• The Court held that if two FIRs (first and second) contain essentially the same charges, registering the second FIR and conducting a fresh investigation is irregular, and courts cannot take cognizance of it.