Making a case for Clubbing of FIRs – Addressing the Evolving Jurisprudence

Introduction

The purpose of the judicial system is to bring justice to all individuals, not to harass them. If a legal provision impedes the administration of justice, it must be struck down or reinterpreted in order to provide victims with total justice.

However, the continued misuse of the Indian criminal justice system prompted the country’s highest court to take an interventionist stance. In recent years, it has been seen that many FIRs have been filed against a single person in various regions of the country, particularly in relation to statements or remarks made against a group, philosophy, or organization.

The question is whether this tendency of having the accused run from one state to another and from one court to another is to be resisted seriously and if it is time to build a system to regulate and check this problem of multiple prosecutions for the same or similar crime.

Recent statements by the Supreme Court’s vacation bench in the case of Nupur Sharma have sparked a controversy about whether the court may have denied her redress by prejudging her crime. Her petition, filed according to Article 32 of the Constitution, requested the dismissal or, alternatively, the consolidation of almost similar criminal accusations made against her throughout the nation.

Despite the fact that her attorney chose to withdraw her petition after detecting the vacation bench’s bias against her, the issue of whether the bench could have denied her relief regardless of the bench’s judgment of her offense might still be raised.

In the meanwhile, another vacation bench of the Supreme Court has accepted to hear a case by TV presenter Rohit Ranjan, against whom FIRs have been lodged for broadcasting a deceptive film against Indian National Congress leader Rahul Gandhi.

Considering the contentious words made by another bench last week, it will be fascinating to see how the court handles this problem from a legal standpoint.

Sameness Principle

The idea of sameness must be interpreted in a limited way. According to Surender Kaushik  v. State of Uttar Pradesh, it is not permissible to register a complaint that would constitute an improvement of facts in the first FIR. It also forbids complaints against the same defendant. The subject matter of complaints is evaluated using a de facto “test of sameness”.

If two complaints pertain to the same event in the same occurrence or are part of the same transaction, their subject matter is identical. Events are part of the same transaction if they pertain to the same occurrence at the same location and occur in close proximity to one another in time. In circumstances when the claims in the FIR are distinct and have a different spectrum, it would be considered a counter-complaint and not an attempt to amend the initial charges.

Similar Offense

The same offense is one that arises from the same event, transaction, or incident and involves the same defendant, even if it is brought before multiple courts. When the accused and charges are the same, but the substance, method, and manner of the crime and its conduct are different, consecutive FIRs are not regarded to be for the same crime. According to Nirmal Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab, the form and modality of the offense’s conduct and its character are the determining factors for this determination, not whether the same or different sections were cited.

Moreover, In the case of Arnab Goswami, following the same precedent, all FIRs were consolidated in a single location. It was determined that failure to do so would constitute a breach of the petitioner’s right to fair treatment under Article 14.

The Constitution of India stipulates that India should be a nation ruled by the rule of law. The courts are the enforcers of the law, and they must make decisions without being influenced by other factors.

Comparative Jurisdictional Analysis – India and USA

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation is a specialized entity in the United States that oversees several lawsuits. The Panel was established in 1968 and has the ability to evaluate whether civil lawsuits pending in two or more federal districts may be shifted for preliminary proceedings to a single federal district.

The goal of the transfer is to eliminate the repetition of discovery, prevent conflicting pre-trial judgments, and conserve the parties’ and judiciary’s resources. In addition, the Panel is responsible for centralizing multi-circuit petitions pending in two or more federal courts for review of a government agency order. This Panel holds its hearings at several locations around the nation in order to maximize participation from interested parties.

Establishing a panel similar to the one in the United States seems to be a fantastic answer to the problem of multiple cases. Especially in the current age of social media domination, it is crucial to regulate these complicated concerns that have a negative impact on our criminal justice system.

No one will be able to manipulate or abuse the law if the federal government implements such a method. No one may use the law as a cover to harass a person. Let’s see whether the Central Government will come up with a solution or if residents will be forced to continually approach the courts. It is time to put a stop to the widespread practice of submitting many identical complaints against a person for the same offense. It is certain that the suspected perpetrators of the aforementioned crimes had a comfortable financial situation.

Protection Against ‘Double Jeopardy’

Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees people “remedies for enforcement of their rights,” offers the essential justification for the proposed consolidation of FIRs.

This remedy may only be sought at the highest court since a state’s highest court lacks the authority to transfer a criminal case from one state to another.

In several instances, the court has already merged or combined multiple FIRs against an accused person in order to preserve the rights and liberties of persons facing a multitude of charges stemming from a single occurrence.

Nonetheless, a 2001 ruling in the case TT Antony v. State of Kerala emphasized the “test of sameness” for combining numerous FIRs. In this instance, the apex court examined the constitutionality of filing a second FIR and determined that it violates Articles 20(2) and 21 of the Constitution as well as Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPc), which prohibits double jeopardy.

In addition, the court ruled that once an FIR based on Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code – information disclosed in a cognizable offense — has been filed, information obtained after the inquiry has begun cannot serve as the basis for a second FIR. The supreme court clarified in 2016 that several FIRs are permissible in circumstances involving distinct transactions. This indicates that a second FIR is legally permissible if a new transaction happens after the first FIR has been filed and the accusations are of a different kind.

Section 300 prohibits expressly retrial for the same offense based on the same facts or transaction after acquittal or conviction. In Prem Chand Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, it was ruled that if the substance of two FIRs is identical, the simple insertion of a few clauses in the second FIR does not qualify it as a separate occurrence.

In the State of Rajasthan v. Bhagwan Das, where multiple FIRs with the same subject matter have been filed in different jurisdictions and thus fall under the jurisdiction of different courts, Section 186 of the Code will be invoked to prevent the accused from being subjected to unnecessary harassment, and directions will be issued to stop the proceedings in other courts.

Conclusion

To summarize, the issue posed in this article is answered in the negative, as shown by the terms of the Act and several judgments. It does not, however, mean that all future FIRs are unsustainable. In other words, the law states that any subsequent FIR on the same crime as the first is entitled to be annulled. Nonetheless, if the subject matter is dissimilar or the FIRs are in the type of counter-complaints, they are likely to be upheld.

Multiple complaints for the same claimed crimes subject a person to double jeopardy while also wasting court time and public funds, as highlighted in this piece. The Supreme Court recognized it two decades ago as well, but the remedies devised by the Court have fallen behind the times and give little relief to individuals pursued by various law enforcement agencies and criminal charges.

This article has been submitted by Aditya Mehrotra, a student, at Symbiosis Law School, Pune.