 Good evening friends and amongst us we have Mr. Murti D. Nayak senior advocate from Karnataka High Court and he has done various sessions, though like we can say that he has done topics on different topics, though primarily on the criminal side. The sameness is that there is a underlying current of the deeper dive into the criminal law. And there's always a debate on the legal fraternity and otherwise as to whether we can have the FIR registered for the same offense time and again or what is the way forward in these aspects. Registration of another FIR as to whether if there are any other inputs it can be done or what we did the legal journey in these aspects since it's a late evening will not take much time and Mr. Nayak also has a working day tomorrow and I would request him to share his knowledge over to you Mr. Thank you Vikas ji. Every time you asked me to speak on a topic. It's a learning experience for me. And in fact, live law, I'm sorry beyond law CLC is doing a fabulous job I think this is the third year. Continuously, it is conducting lectures and on a regular basis. It's very informative and it helps all of us. Now, straight away coming to today's topic. Before we embark on registration of another FIR and sameness of offense. It would be prudent to understand the term offense. See various provisions, which deal with offense under the CRPC. Section to a that is available offense and non available offense. I will not go deep into the definition aspect and only touch upon broadly. Then you have section to see that is cognizable offense then to L non cognizable offense. Then you have to end off CRPC which defines offense as a whole. Then under section 40 of the IPC deals with the definition of offense. So this is one part this is the first part which broadly deals with offense. Now the second part second and the most important part is mode of reporting of an offense, which is also known as setting the criminal law into motion. So the first phase or the first step is information to the police, or you can also put it differently. One of the more is information to the police in the section 154, which is commonly known as the fire. Then the second mode is complaint to a magistrate. And as all of you are aware, a complaint is defined under 2D of CRPC, which deals with oral and written information. And upon a complaint, if it is a complaint, which is written or complaint of facts, then cognizance is taken under 190 subsection 1A of CRPC. Also, another mode of taking cognizance of an offense is subsection 1C of section 190 that is upon information received from any person other than a police officer or upon his own knowledge that such offense is committed. Now in this second mode that is complaint to a magistrate when a complaint is given to a magistrate, then the magistrate or in certain circumstances, if it is before a special judge or a special magistrate, then he has the option of postponing the process of taking cognizance. Instead, he can direct the investigation to the police under 1563. He can direct the police to take cognizance of the offense, investigate the same and file a report. So that is known as reference under 1563 of CRPC. Under such circumstances, the investigating officer has to register an FIR to set the criminal law into motion. Thereafter, conduct a investigation and file his report under 1732. Likewise, this is similar to the first category when you approach the police directly in respect of a cognizable offense. Then he is required to register an FIR under 154 CRPC before he embarks upon or proceeds to investigate the offense. Hence it is Sinecoa known that an FIR is registered in respect of a cognizable offense before the commencement of the investigation. Now then you have investigation of non-cognizable offenses that is postulated in 155 of CRPC. If it is a non-cognizable offense, then the permission of the magistrate is to be obtained etc. And in some cases when an investigation is done in respect of a cognizable offense, but later on you get to know that it is a non-cognizable offense. The report filed by the investigating officer partakes the character of a complaint as envisaged under section 2D of CRPC. This you find it in explanation to 2D of CRPC. So broadly these are the facets or these are the methods in respect of an offense, methods of investigation in respect of an offense. Everywhere what is to be noted is everywhere the word employed in the code be it the code of criminal procedure or IPC or any other statute or any other special enactment is a offense or an offense. So an information or a complaint call it by name or a report is in respect of a particular offense. Hence now with this backdrop we will discuss or we will embark on a greater examination of today's topic. So how can an offense be investigated? Can there be multiple FIRs or can there be multiple complaints in respect of a particular offense? All this has been time and again subject matter of scrutiny and examination at great detail by the various courts in the country. Starting with the Supreme Court which have been and judgments of the Supreme Court have been consistently followed by the other high courts in the country. The prominent and the notable judgment on this point is that of TT Antony versus State of Kerala that is 2001 volume 6 SCC 181. During the course of today's talk I would be dealing with very few important judgments of the Supreme Court which has dealt with various aspects of registration of a crime, registration of an FIR complaint etc. More particularly with special emphasis on registration of FIR so we will deal with the important judgments on this point. Starting with TT Antony that is as I have already given you the citation and most of you all must be aware 2001 6 SCC page 181. The Supreme Court was dealing with a situation where the case emanated from a mob violence. Hence multiple FIRs were registered in respect of an offense that took place on a particular day. Ultimately these multiple FIRs were challenged before the high court by filing a petition under 482 and the primary ground of challenge was that multiple FIRs or second FIR cannot be or you can also put it this way. A subsequent FIR for the same offense cannot be registered and as such the subsequent FIRs should be treated as part and parcel of the first FIR. Hence the Supreme Court, the two judges bench of the Supreme Court held that there can be no second FIR and no fresh investigation on receipt of every subsequent information in respect of the same cognizable offense or same occurrence giving rise to one or more cognizable offenses. Only information about commission of a cognizable offense which is first entered in station house diary by officer in charge of the police station can be registered as FIR under section 154. All subsequent information will be covered by section 162. Officer in charge of the police station as to investigate not merely the cognizable offense reported in the FIR but also other connected offenses found to have been committed in the course of the same transaction or same occurrence and filed one or more reports as provided in section 173. Even if after conclusion of the investigation pursuant to filing of FIR and submission of report under section 173, the officer in charge of the police station comes across any further pertaining to the same incident he can make further investigation normally with the leave of court and forward the further evidence if any collected with further report or reports under section 173. Hence all this aspect of multiple FIR, second FIR, etc. was considered in greater detail and very exhaustively and copiously the Supreme Court has laid down the law and it has also held that any intrusion into the right of an accused unnecessary intrusion would amount to intrusion of his fundamental right, thereby warranting interference either at article 226 or 226 of the Constitution or under section 482 of CRPC. Hence all the subsequent FIRs that were registered were pushed by the Supreme Court. Thereafter this was in fact in this judgment of TT Antony all the previous judgments on the point including state of Ariyana versus Bajandlal, state of West Bengal versus Swapan Kumar, Guva, etc. Everything was considered and thereafter the law was laid down. Then after nearly four years or to be precise around three and a half years, the Supreme Court, three judges mentioned the Supreme Court in the case of Upkar Singh versus Wade Prakash, dealt with the similar aspect that is pertaining to second complaint in regard to same incident filed as a counter complaint. And hence it considered the law laid down in Antony's case and held that two FIRs, what is the meaning of two FIRs? And it went on to hold that second complaint in regard to same incident filed as a counter complaint held not prohibited under CRPC. So it distinguished TT Antony's case and held that if it is with regard to a counter allegation that is for example if the main allegation or the first FIR is in respect of an incident where he alleges that B tried to stab him along with C and if a counter FIR or a counter information is filed with the same police station or any other police station by C or B stating that it was A who was the aggressor or A has indulged in certain illegal activities which amounts to an offence. Then it amounts to a counter allegation and a counter complaint and there is no prohibition as such to register a counter complaint. As all of you are aware it is in common parlance known as case and counter case. So the TT Antony was clarified and it was held that the judgment in TT Antony did not consider the legal right of an agreed person to file a counter claim. On the contrary from the observations found in the said judgment it clearly indicates that filing a counter complaint is permissible. If the law laid down in TT Antony cases to be accepted as holding that a second complaint in regard to the same incident filed as a counter complaint is prohibited under the criminal procedure court then such conclusion will lead to serious consequences. This will be clear from the hypothetical example that if in regard to a crime committed by the real accused he takes the first opportunity to lodge a false complaint and the same is registered by the jurisdiction police then the agreed 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 legitimate right to bring the real accused to book. This cannot be the purport of the judgment or this cannot be the purport of the court. So this is what has been held in Upkar Singh which is a free judgment. Then there was a he had us for almost six years. Then the Supreme Court in the case of Babu Bhai versus state of Gujarat and this is again a two judges bench judgment which is reported as 2010 12 SCC 254 dealt with test of sameness which is something akin to today's topic. That is test of sameness to FIRs in respect of same transaction subsequent to registration of an FI. What happens. So it was held that an FIR and a section 154 CRPC is a very important document. It is the first information of a cognizable offense recorded by the officer in charge of the police station. It sets the machinery of criminal law and motion and marks the commencement of investigation which ends with the formation of an opinion at a section 169 or 170 as the case may be and forwarding of the 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 offenses. 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. It has been further held 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. This is very important. 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 in the affirmative, the second FIR is liable to be cost. However, in case the contrary is proved whether origin in the second FIR is different and they are in respect of two different incidents, oblique crime, 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 a counterclaim investigation on both the FIRs has to be conducted. This is how the Supreme Court after dealing with Titi Antony, Upkar Singh and the earlier judgment that is Ramlal Narang, Ramesh Chandra Nandlal Parik, Nirmal Singh Kailan has laid down this law. And more particularly, here the Supreme Court was also dealing with a fresh investigation under 1738 and it was held that ordinarily the court would order further investigation and not reinvestigation or fresh investigation. But further investigation, I'm sorry, reinvestigation of fresh investigation can be ordered by the constitutional courts under exceptional circumstances or in exceptional and extraordinary cases where there is gross abuse of power and failure of justice. So if gross abuse of power is writ large from the facts of the case, then a fresh investigation or a reinvestigation can be ordered. And of course in this judgment, the concept of fair investigation and other things, everything has been dealt with. Kindly go through this judgment because it not only touches upon the aspect of sameness of crime or sameness of offense, but it also deals with various aspects of an investigative process. Then you have the case of Amitbhai Anil Chandra Shah that is 2013, 6 ACC 348. This is a notable judgment, again a two judgment. Here the facts where there was an accusation of murder against the accused, that is a fake encounter. And subsequently one of the witness in the said murder case was also murdered. Hence two FIRs were registered. The Supreme Court, considering the facts of the case and applying the law, including C Muniya Pan that is 2010, 9 ACC 567 has again dealt with the aspect of when or has dealt with the question of when can a second FIR be registered or is a second FIR permissible and if so under what circumstances. Hence it has laid down very copiously the law and it held that it was part, if it is part of the same transaction. And here in this case, the Supreme Court has very copiously dealt with the concept of same transaction which finds reference in the relevant sections of CRPC partying to charge that we will deal with a little later. So it was held that there can't be a second FIR and as it forms part of the same transaction, there can be no fresh investigation or rather it was held that there can be no second FIR and consequently there can be no fresh investigation on receipt of every subsequent information in respect of the same cognizable offense or same occurrence or incident giving the rise to one or more cognizable offenses. This is very important. The risk of repetition I would read has been held that there can be no fresh investigation on receipt of every subsequent information in respect of same cognizable offense or the same occurrence or incident giving rise to one or more cognizable offenses. So, all the judgments commencing with Munia or rather commencing with TT Anthony, Srirashiv Raj, Munia Pan, all the judgments were considered and that was the law laid down by Supreme Court in Amit by Anil Chandrashaske. Then you have Audesh Kumar that is 2016, 3 SCC page 8, again a two judges bench judgment of the Supreme Court. Here the Supreme Court was again dealing with the concept of FIR, second FIR and its permissibility. So, the principles have been summarized, wherein it has been held that there can be no second FIR in the event of any further information being received by investigating agency in respect of the same offense or same occurrence or same transaction. Finally note, in respect of the same offense or same occurrence or same transaction, giving rise to one or more offenses for which our sheet has already been filed by the investigating agency. The course available with investigating agency in the said situation is to conduct further investigation normally with leave of court as provided under section 1738 CRPC. However, it was held that the said principle was not applicable to the fact situation in that case. As the substance of allegation and transactions impugned in the two FIRs were different. So, some substance of what was held there was in Audesh Kumar's case was that if the allegation made in the second FIR is different, then the test laid down in Antony and Utkar Singh and other cases cannot be made applicable at a second FIR is permissible. In fact, you may kindly make a note the relevant portion. The discussion is from Para 21, where they have examined Amitbhai Anilchandrisha, which in turn has relied on TT Antony that is Para 37 of Amitbhai's case. Then you go further Para 22, Para 23. So, in Para 24, that's a proof court in Audesh Kumar's case has examined the relevant portions of the law laid down in Amitbhai's case. And in Para 25, it has held that it is well settled principle of law that there can be no second FIR in the event of any further information being received. This portion I have already read and in Para 26, it held that however, this principle of law is not applicable to the fact situation in the instant case as the substance of the allegations in the second two FIRs is different. The first FIR deals with the offence punishable and section so and so of the act, whereas the second FIR deals with the offences punishable and section 419 and 420 of IPC, which are alleged to have committed during the course of investigation of the case in the first FIR. This court is of the view that the alleged offence and the second FIR in substance are distinct from the offences under the first FIR and they cannot in any case said to be in the form of the part of the same transaction. They cannot in any case said to be in the form of the part of same transaction with the alleged offences under the first FIR. Therefore, no question of further investigation could be made by the investigating agency on the alleged offences. A reason as the term further investigation occurred under subsection 8 to section 173. Connotes the investigation of the case in continuation of the earlier investigation with respect to which the charge sheet has already been filed. The reliance is placed in the judgment of this court in Ramachaudri versus state of Bihar. The relevant para 17 leads thus para 27 they have held that therefore for the above said reasons, the submissions made on behalf of both the appellants are not tenable in law and the same cannot be accepted by this court. Further, the case of Amitvaya Nilchandrisha upon which strong reliance is placed by the learned counsel for both the appellants is also totally inapplicable to the fact situation and it does not support the case of both appellants. Hence it held that in the set case it was held that the offences in both the FIRs were dishing and hence two FIRs could be maintained. Now going further in the case of Lalu Prasad Yadav that is which all of you are aware pertains to the famous fodder scam in Bihar which is reported as 2017 8 SCC page one. Here the Supreme Court made a fine distinction between same offense and same kind of offense. It was held that there is distinction between same offense and same kind of offense. So there it was held that the offences elies where multiple and they were committed during different periods and hence it cannot be said that said and argued that they are all part of the same transaction and hence it is the same offense and consequently one FIR should be registered and there should be one trial and here this is where the Supreme Court has dealt with section 300 of CRPC section 300 of CRPC and 219 220 221 which deals with multiple city of charges etc charges of the same time to be tried together all these things which fall under the heading charge. So all these things were examined and the prayer for joint trial was turned down on the ground that it may be the same kind of offense but it is not same offense or a single offense forming part of the same transaction. So the I would skip due to paucity of time I would not refer to the relevant paragraph. However, it was it's a very lengthy judgment. And it has been in fact with reference to 120 B it has been held that general conspiracy and number of separate conspiracies having similar general purpose. The distinction between the two is where different groups of persons operate towards their separate ends without any privity with each other each combination constitutes separate conspiracy. So this is what was held in Lalu Prasad Yadav's case and where it was also held in Paris 30 to 37 of the report that separate trial is the rule and joint trial is an exception. Joint trial would be an irregular exercise of discretion. If a court allows innumerable offenses spread over a long period of time and committed by a large number of persons to be tried under the protected wings of an all embracing conspiracy. And if each or some of the offenses can be tried can be separately tried it would be appropriate and lawful joint trial prolongs the trial and causes waste of judicial time and complicates the matter, which might otherwise be simple. And it would confuse the accused and cause prejudice to them court should not be overzealous to provide a cover of conspiracy for a number of offenses. Unless it is satisfied that the persons who committed separate offenses by parties to the conspiracy and committed the separate acts pursuant to conspiracy. When several offenses are released to have been committed by several accused persons, normal rule is of separate trials. Further, when parties are different issue of a stopper does not arise. And it dealt with specifically dealt with section 218 CRPC and held that section 218 CRPC deals with separate charges for distinct offenses. Section 219 provides that three offenses of the same kind can be clubbed in one trial within one trial committed within one year. Section 220 speaks of trial for more than one offense, if it is in the same transaction. In the instant case, it cannot be said that default case is same transaction as the transactions are in different tragedies for different years, different amounts, different letters, supply orders and suppliers committed by different set of accused persons in different cases with respect to default case. Thus, section 221 is not attracted. There may be a conspiracy in general one and a separate one. There may be larger conspiracy and smaller conspiracy which will develop in successive stages involving different accused persons. In the instant case, default cases have been made in various years by combination of different accused persons. Thus, there can be separate trial. So this is very important with regard to joint trial, etc. And then adhere most importantly is the same offense and the same kind of offense which has been emphasized. Then in the case of state versus Kalyan Singh, again, the provision of section 218-223 CRPC was dealt with and discussed. This pertain to the Babri Masjid demolition is reported as 2017 7 SCC444. Here it was held that a joint trial is permissible. And accordingly a joint trial was ordered and the discharge of the main accused was set aside, etc. So I will not delve deep into the nitty gritties of the said judgment. You may refer to the same as it is very lengthy is reported as 2017 7 SCC444. Here the concept of joint trial was dealt with and it was held that all offenses committed in course of same transaction and to accomplish a criminal conspiracy that is demolition of Babri Masjid. And hence a direction was issued to conduct a joint trial. So ultimately the test is whether it was conducted, whether an offense was committed in the course of same transaction. Here it was held that the ultimate goal in furtherance of the conspiracy was to demolish the Babri Masjid and hence the criminal conspiracy, the ultimate goal being one. A joint trial was permissible. Unlike in Lalu Prasad Yadav's case it was held that the defaultation and misappropriation was committed at different periods of time, at different tragedies, by different people. Different set of people, conspiracy was different, different dates, so everything was different. Hence separate trial was ordered. Now, another notable and very important judgment on this point is in the case of P. Shri Kumar versus state of Kerala, 2018 4 SCC 579. Here, again the two judges bench of the Supreme Court dealt with second FIR and counter complaint, etc. And it ultimately held that, but here it is very interesting, the Supreme Court held second FIR by appellant against R3 though related to same incident for which first FIR was filed by R2 against appellant, R3 and three bank officers. Yet, second FIR being in the nature of a counter complaint against R3 was legally maintainable and we could and could be entertained for being tried on its merits. It is for the reason that firstly, second FIR was not filed by the same person who filed first FIR had it been so then situation would have been somewhat different. Such was not the case here. Second, it was filed by appellant as a counter complaint against R3. Third, first FIR was against five persons based on one set of allegations, whereas second FIR was based on allegations different from allegations made in first FIR. And lastly, I quote while quashing second FIR charge, she did not examine issue arising in the case in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in Hukkar Singh and Surinder Kaushik. Hence, it was held that a second FIR is permissible if the information is in respect of a counter complaint. So this is on the lines of Hukkar Singh's case that is 2004 and even TT Antony was also cited here. All these documents were considered and this was a law laid down by the Supreme Court in Sri Kumar's case. Now very interesting case is that of Patu Rajan versus state of Tamil Nadu. That is the case involving the owner of Sarvana Bhavan wherein he was accused of and charged for the offense of murder and conspiracy, etc. This is reported as 2019, 2004 SCC 771. That is Patu Rajan versus state of Tamil Nadu and here there were two incidents. So it was argued that the original offense of kidnapping, etc. formed part of the same transaction that is the second offense of murder of the husband of a woman sought to be secured as wife by the accused. So the Supreme Court held that the test of sameness cannot be applied here. Those are two different and distinct offenses and again dealt with the aspect of further investigation, fresh investigation, etc. And held that incidents, transactions, offenses in question where whether formed part of the same transaction, where in continuation of each other, warranting only further investigation or where independent of each other, warranting fresh investigation. So the entire principles was explained in great detail and it was held that it warranted separate investigation and that the incidents and the transactions and the offenses were distinct and they were not in continuation of each other. Hence, two trials conducted that held to be correct and as such the conviction was confirmed. Here again PT Anthony, Ramlal Narang, Gaudesh Kumar, all these judgments were pressed into service, Nirmal Singh Kallan, etc. And after examining the principles on the point, the Supreme Court ruled. The three judges went to the Supreme Court ruled that the offense under 364 and 302 did not form part of the same transaction they were distinct and hence two FIRs were permissive. Now friends, this is the law, well-settled law with regard to two FIRs or call it by any name, sameness of offense, second FIR, further information, etc. So under what circumstances can an FIR be registered? The second FIR can be registered, how a criminal law is set into motion, how a counter complaint or a counter allegation has to be dealt with or a counter offense has to be dealt with. All these aspects are well-settled so there is no gray area as such with regard to this part of criminal jurisprudence is concerned. Even in Arnab Ranjan Goswami's case that is Arnab Ranjan Goswami v. Union of India reported as 2020, 14 SEC page 12, the very consolidation of several FIRs registered in various states were sought by the petitioner before the Supreme Court and there the law has been laid down as to what amounts to various offenses if various FIRs are registered in various states alleging the same offense that is one offense or one incident. If one incident gives rise to various FIRs or various complaints then how such a situation has to be tackled or how it has to be dealt with has been hopelessly considered and dealt with by the Supreme Court in Arnab Ranjan Goswami's case. So that was a case of consolidation likewise in Amish Devgan a year later in Amish Devgan v. Union of India 2021, 1 SEC page 1. Also this was a case where there was certain allegations against the petitioner for having made certain objectionable statements giving rise to multiple complaints, multiple FIRs for offenses primarily under section 153A of the IPC wherein it was alleged that certain section of the society was hurt. The sentiments of certain section of the society was hurt by certain derogatory comments made by the petitioner during the course of his anchoring and this was again dealt with very exhaustively by the Supreme Court in Amish Devgan's case even 153A of IPC and all the ancillary provisions all the ancillary questions of law were dealt with. Likewise, very recently in the case of Navika Kumar v. Union of India, that is 2022 SEC online, SC 1289, here again the Supreme Court was dealing with the consolidation of offenses. Here again the petitioner was an anchor of a news channel that certain allegations were made against her that she made certain objectionable comments, etc. So while dealing with and while allowing consolidation of FIRs registered in various states, the Supreme Court has laid down the law and has in fact followed the earlier law and has held that consolidation would be necessary. Now, a very important judgment with regard to large scale fraud committed by finance companies who accept deposits from gullible customers by promising certain exorbitant interest rates or by promising certain things which they know from inception that it would not be possible and mainly the offenses would center around cheating, reach of trust, all these things, because right from inception they would be aware that such a thing is not possible. So under such circumstances the Supreme Court in the case of Narendra Jit Singh Sani versus Union of India reported as 2002 volume 2 SEC 210 dealt with this aspect and has held that finance companies accepting deposits from a large number of persons, not repaying the same. Then under such circumstances when the parties were different amount of deposit and the period for which the deposit was accepted were also different. They held each individual deposit agreement constituted an independent transaction and after holding thus has rejected the prayer for consolidation of all the FIRs that was registered against the promoters of a finance company. And it was held that the parties or who were in the form of depositors where different the deposit amount was different period was different date of investment was different so everything was different. So this was this is something similar to the case of Lalu Prasad Yadav and of course this emanates from a large scale fraud by a non banking finance company which is very common in India. So on and off you have such frauds happening. So in this case it is held that consolidation is not possible. There has to be independent FIRs independent investigation and independent charge sheets and consequently independent trials. So this is broadly the framework of what today's topic that is registration of another FIR and sameness of offense. I think we can take some questions now because because you are there. Yeah. I was just watching as to whether we have some questions on the YouTube. Yeah, correct. Yeah. No question that somehow come on the chat as well as on the YouTube because you have explained the subtle difference between the them that has to how it has to be a commonplace incident and so on and on. And I believe that everybody has accepted the way you have taken the things in the right way and largely we have seen that from all these judgments where even the high stakes were there or the law has developed and we hope that the participants who have watched us would have a lot of gain, gain say, at least I can say that we learned along on behalf of the beyond law CLC team. We thank Mr. Moody for sharing his time and that to it later. Thank you everyone. Stay safe.