In a significant judgment, the Rajasthan High Court's Jodhpur bench has reaffirmed the legal principle that multiple First Information Reports (FIRs) cannot be registered for the same set of allegations. This ruling came while exonerating an individual who had been subjected to two FIRs containing identical accusations.
The case revolved around two FIRs—No. 02/1994 and No. 09/1994—both pertaining to a transaction dated March 19, 1990, in which a plot owned by Smt. Sugni Devi was sold to Smt. Saraswati. The allegations in both FIRs were identical, leading to simultaneous legal proceedings against the petitioner.
Justice Farjand Ali, presiding over the matter, emphasized that initiating multiple FIRs based on the same facts and allegations is impermissible under the law. He cited the Supreme Court's ruling in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala & Ors., (2001) 6 SCC 181, which established that when the core of the allegations and the nature of the transaction are identical, lodging a second FIR is not permissible. Justice Ali noted that the trial court, in this instance, failed to adhere to this settled legal principle, resulting in an error of law.
Furthermore, the High Court observed that the trial court, while taking cognizance of the matter, overlooked the negative final report submitted by the investigating agency, which indicated that no case was made out against the petitioner. Justice Ali underscored that it is a well-established legal requirement for a Magistrate to consider the grounds mentioned in a negative final report before proceeding to take cognizance of an offense. The failure to do so, as highlighted in this case, constituted a significant legal oversight.
The High Court also criticized the revisional court for not exercising its jurisdiction appropriately. Justice Ali pointed out that the revisional court was expected to scrutinize the legality and correctness of the trial court's order but instead concurred without adequately addressing the pertinent legal issues. This concurrence, without proper legal examination, was deemed a misappreciation of both legal and factual aspects, rendering the orders of both the trial and revisional courts unsustainable.
This judgment reinforces the legal doctrine that prohibits multiple prosecutions for the same offense, a principle rooted in the protection against double jeopardy. It serves as a critical reminder to judicial and law enforcement authorities to ensure that individuals are not subjected to redundant legal actions based on identical allegations, thereby safeguarding the rights of the accused and upholding the integrity of the legal system.
In conclusion, the Rajasthan High Court's decision not only exonerates the petitioner but also reiterates the imperative for judicial bodies to meticulously adhere to established legal principles, ensuring that justice is administered fairly and without undue harassment through multiple proceedings for the same alleged offense.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.