Second FIR Cannot Be Lodged For Same Transaction Merely Due To Omission Of Certain Penal Provisions: Kerala High Court

The High Court was considering a Criminal Miscellaneous Case filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), by the sole accused in a case registered under Sections 69, 82, 89 and 115(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). The petitioner sought quashing of the FIR on the ground that, prior to its registration, the third respondent had filed a private complaint on the very same allegations, pursuant to which a case was registered.

The Single Bench of Justice Jobin Sebastian held, “It is true that, while specifying the penal provisions in the private complaint, the de facto complainant did not expressly mention Section 69 of the BNS. Nevertheless, the de facto complaint had specifically narrated the facts constituting an offence under Section 69 of the BNS. Merely because the de facto complainant omitted to mention a particular penal provision, it cannot be held that the factual allegations constituting that offence ceased to exist.”

“The mere fact that the subsequent statement which resulted in the registration of the second FIR contains a more detailed account of the earlier allegations cannot furnish a valid legal basis for the registration of a second FIR in respect of the same occurrence, particularly when the original private complaint had already disclosed the allegation that the accused had sexual intercourse with the de facto complainant on the false promise of marriage and concealing his marital status. Likewise, the criminal law cannot be set in motion afresh by lodging a second FIR in respect of the very same transaction merely because certain penal provisions were omitted or the investigation was found to be inadequate”, it added.

Advocate M.K. Sumod represented the Petitioner while Advocate K.K. Dheerendrakrishnan represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The petition before the High Court was filed by the sole accused in a case registered under Sections 69, 82, 89 and 115(2) of the BNS. According to the petitioner, in respect of the very same incident narrated in the First Information Statement (FIS) leading to the registration of the said crime, the de facto complainant had earlier approached the jurisdictional Magistrate by filing a private complaint. On receipt of the said complaint, the Magistrate forwarded the same to the police for investigation under Section 175(3) of the BNSS, pursuant to which a case was registered at Kannur Town Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 318, 316(2), 336(2) and 340(2) read with Section 3(5) of the BNS.

It was also averred that the allegations contained in the private complaint and those contained in the subsequent FIR registered at Chathannur Police Station arose out of the very same transaction and were identical. The petitioner thus sought quashing on the ground that the registration of a second FIR in respect of the same occurrence was legally impermissible.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the de facto complainant alleged in both that she was induced to engage in sexual intercourse with the accused on the false representation that he would marry her. It was alleged in both proceedings that the accused represented himself as a bachelor and promised to marry the de facto complainant, and it was on the basis of such representation and promise that the de facto complainant consented to sexual intercourse. The Bench thus noted that the foundational allegation was that the accused had sexual intercourse with the de facto complainant on the basis of a false promise of marriage while concealing his existing marital status, and the same was clearly discernible both in the private complaint and in the subsequent FIS.

“It is true that the subsequent FIS contains a more elaborate narration of the events leading to the alleged occurrence. However, that by itself cannot obscure the fact that the essential factual ingredients constituting the offence punishable under Section 69 of the BNS had already been disclosed in the earlier private complaint”, it added.

Considering the fact that the de facto complainant did not expressly mention Section 69 of the BNS, the Bench stated that an omission on the part of the de facto complainant to mention a particular penal provision cannot absolve the investigating agency of its obligation to invoke the appropriate provisions of law.

The Bench was of the view that the private complaint disclosed the allegation that the accused had sexual intercourse with the de facto complainant on the false promise of marriage and even if the investigating agency omitted to incorporate Section 69 of the BNS while registering the FIR pursuant to the Magistrate's order under Section 175(3) of the BNSS, such omission couldnot confer upon the de facto complainant the liberty to initiate a fresh criminal proceeding by lodging another FIR in respect of the very same transaction.

Dealing with the issue of registration of multiple FIRs in respect of the same occurrence, the Bench noted that the subsequent FIR arose out of the very same transaction that formed the subject matter of the earlier private complaint, and both proceedings involve the same parties. The Bench further held that the criminal law cannot be set in motion afresh by lodging a second FIR in respect of the very same transaction.

Holding that the second FIR was legally unsustainable, as it related to the very same transaction that had already culminated in the registration of the criminal case, the Bench quashed the said FIR.

Cause Title: Savan Vasanthan v. Station House Officer (Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:46163)

Appearance

Appellant: Advocates M.K.Sumod, Vidya M.K., Thushara.K, Meera S Gopan, Sudhir Nambiar P. V., Rema T.P.

Respondent: Advocates K.K. Dheerendrakrishnan, N.P. Asha, P. Sujith Kumar, Senior Public Prosecutor Sareena George

Click here to read/download Order