In a recent judgement, the Supreme Court has observed that the prosecution of a person on the basis of a second FIR isn’t sustainable if its substratum is the same as that of the first FIR.
The judgement came out in a case titled as PREM CHAND SINGH vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH.
CASE BACKGROUND
In the present case, the complainant lodged the First FIR stating that he had never executed any general Power of Attorney in favour of the accused therein and that the accused forged general Power of Attorney to sell his lands illegally. The Trial Court ultimately tried and acquitted the accused.
Aggrieved with the judgement, the complainant again filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C,in which he stated same allegations. This was forwarded to the Police leading to registration of the second FIR.
And accused filed an application for discharge in the subsequent FIR.
The application was ultimately dismissed, and then the accused approached the Apex Court in appeal.
The accused in its appeal contended before the Supreme Court that,the subsequent FIR relates to General Power of Attorney which was the subject matter of previous FIR and in the facts of the case, the institution of the FIR on 09.10.2008 long years after the execution of the general power of attorney dated 02.05.1985 is, therefore, a complete abuse of the process of law and the proceedings are fit to be quashed. Referring to Section 300 Cr.P.C., he submitted that the appellant couldn’t have been tried for the same offence twice at the behest of the respondent who is the complainant himself in both the FIRs.
The Court referred to the facts of the case and thus observed:
It is, therefore, apparent that the subject matter of both the FIRs is the same general power of attorney dated 02.05.1985 and the sales made by the appellant in pursuance of the same. If the substratum of the two FIRs is common, the mere addition of Sections 467, 468 and 471 in the subsequent FIR cannot be considered as different ingredients to justify the latter FIR as being based on different materials, allegations and grounds.
In regard to Section 300 Cr.P.C, the bench allowed the appealed and accordingly observed:”In view of the conclusion that the substratum of the two FIRs are the same and that the appellant has already stood acquitted on 07.08.1998 of the charge with regard to forging any general power of attorney of the respondent, we are of the considered opinion that the subsequent prosecution of the appellant in FIR No. 114 of 2008 dated 09.10.2008 is completely unsustainable. “
The judgement has been delivered by Justice Navin Sinha and Justice Krishna Murari on 07-02-2020.
Read Judgement Here:
