Power of quashing FIR must be exercised sparingly: Allahabad HC

Prayagraj, Oct 30 (PTI) The Allahabad High Court Thursday observed that the power of quashing an FIR or criminal proceeding must be exercised sparingly with circumspection and only in rare cases where the complaint does not disclose any cognizable offence or where continuation of the investigation would amount to an abuse of process of law.

Observing this, a two-judge bench of justices Chandra Dhari Singh and Lakshmi Kant Shukla dismissed a petition challenging an FIR on the ground that the impugned FIR is a second FIR on identical facts and allegations, lodged with mala fide intent after an inordinate delay of more than five years from the original transaction.

It was contended that the earlier FIR lodged by Shubham Agnihotri (informant) at the same police station, had already been investigated and no offence was found against them.

Refusing to interfere in the matter, the court held that the bar against a second FIR operates only where both relate to the same incident or transaction.

The court in its judgement observed that registration of a subsequent FIR on same background is not legally prohibited if it discloses new and distinct offences based on fresh fact.

Dismissing the writ petition filed by Parul Budhraja and three others, the court said that while Supreme Court's ruling in the case of TT Antony vs. State of Kerala 2001 prohibits a second FIR in respect of the same transaction or occurrence, it does not bar a subsequent FIR based on a different incident or discovery of a larger conspiracy or fresh facts.

"The rule of sameness must be applied pragmatically and if the scope and object of the subsequent FIR are distinct from the earlier one, the bar against a second FIR does not operate," the court added.

With these observations, the court dismissed the writ petition moved by four persons accused of forging and using fabricated documents including a declaration and distributor application form purportedly bearing counterfeit signatures as well as a fake notarial seal of an advocate to somehow shield themselves from the investigation in the main cheating case of 2019 pertaining to an investment scheme.

In the present case, an FIR was filed against the petitioners in 2024 after the informant filed an application under section 156(3) of the criminal procedure code (CrPC) seeking the court's direction for registration of an FIR.

During the court proceedings before the high court, the counsels for the petitioners contended that the 2024 FIR was nothing but a second FIR on identical facts relating to the same financial transaction investigated earlier in an FIR lodged in 2021, and thus it was hit by TT Antony case ruling of the apex court.

Opposing the plea, the counsels for the complainant argued that the present FIR arises from an entirely distinct transaction of the alleged forgery and use of fabricated documents, committed after registration of the first FIR in 2021. PTI COR RAJ ZMN