QUASHING OF MULTIPLE FIRS AND TRANSFER OF INVESTIGATION TO CBI in Marathi

QUASHING OF MULTIPLE FIRS AND TRANSFER OF INVESTIGATION TO CBI

Multiple FIRs - Quashing of - Governing principles. Held, where two or more FIRs relate to same incident or relate to incidents which form part of same transactions, subsequent FIRs are liable to be quashed. There can be no second FIR where information concerns the same cognisable offence alleged in the first FIR or the same occurrence or incident which gives rise to one or more cognisable offences. This is because investigation covers not only alleged cognisable offence but also other connected offences. But subsequent FIR relating to different incidents or crimes is maintainable. Filing of a second complaint in regard to same incident as a counter complaint is also not precluded nor is this course of action prohibited by CrPC. TT Antony’s case, referred. (Paras 28-30.1)


Multiple FIRs – Quashing of – A programme telecasted on R Bharat on 21.4.2020 by petitioner (journalist) became the foundation of the allegation of commission of offences under the provisions of Sections 153, 153A, 153B, 295A, 298, 500, 504 and 506 IPC - On basis of this cause of action, several FIRs and criminal complaints lodged against him in different States and UT of J & K - Whether multiple FIRs need to be quashed. Held, yes. Except main FIR [FIR 238 of 2020 dated 22.4.2020] all other FIRs need to be quashed. This is because all FIRs or complaints arose out of one and the same incident and had same cause of action. Complaints were worded in identical terms. Even language, content and sequencing of paragraphs and their numbering were identical. Therefore subsequent FIRs were an abuse of process of law and are quashed. (Para 31)

Ed. : Quashing of those FIRs would not amount to expression of any opinion by Supreme Court on merits of the main FIR.

Constitution of India, 1950

Articles 19(1)(a), 14, 32 - Whether multiple FIRs filed against petitioner (journalist) in different States on basis of same cause of action can be quashed in exercise of power under Article 32. Held, yes. Article 32 recognises the constitutional duty of Supreme Court to protect fundamental rights of citizens. Filing of multiple complaints in multiple states and jurisdictions bearing same foundation has a stifling effect on petitioner's right to speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) and to fair treatment guaranteed by Article 14. This also adversely affects the freedom of a citizen to know of the affairs of the nation and the right of a journalist to ensure an informed society. Though exercise of fundamental right is subject to restrictions but State must ensure least restrictive measure to achieve its aim. In present case, subjecting a journalist to multiple complaints and requiring him to pursue remedies before different High Courts is not the least restrictive method of prosecuting crime. This would result in multiplicity of proceedings and cause unnecessary harassment. Therefore, intervention of Supreme Court is warranted. Except main FIR, all other FIRs quashed. Main FIR would survive as petitioner is not immune from investigation. A balance has to be drawn between exercise of fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) and investigation of an offence under CrPC.

HELD
Article 32 of the Constitution constitutes a recognition of the constitutional duty entrusted to this Court to protect the fundamental rights of citizens. The exercise of journalistic freedom lies at the core of speech and expression protected by Article 19(1)(a). The petitioner is a media journalist. The airing of views on television shows which he hosts is in the exercise of his fundamental right to speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a). India's freedoms will rest safe as long as journalists can speak to power without being chilled by a threat of reprisal. The exercise of that fundamental right is not absolute and is answerable to the legal regime enacted with reference to the provisions of Article 19(2). But to allow a journalist to be subjected to multiple complaints and to the pursuit of remedies traversing multiple states and jurisdictions when faced with successive FIRs and complaints bearing the same foundation has a stifling effect on the exercise of that freedom. This will effectively destroy the freedom of the citizen to know of the affairs of governance in the nation and the right of the journalist to ensure an informed society. Our decisions hold that the right of a journalist under Article 19(1)(a) is no higher than the right of the citizen to speak and express. But we must as a society never forget that one cannot exist without the other. Free citizens cannot exist when the news media is chained to adhere to one position. (Para 32)

A litany of our decisions – to refer to them individually would be a parade of the familiar – has firmly established that any reasonable restriction on fundamental rights must comport with the proportionality standard, of which one component is that the measure adopted must be the least restrictive measure to effectively achieve the legitimate state aim. Subjecting an individual to numerous proceedings arising in different jurisdictions on the basis of the same cause of action cannot be accepted as the least restrictive and effective method of achieving the legitimate state aim in prosecuting crime. The manner in which the petitioner has been subjected to numerous FIRs in several States, besides the Union Territories of Jammu and Kashmir on the basis of identical allegations arising out of the same television show would leave no manner of doubt that the intervention of this Court is necessary to protect the rights of the petitioner as a citizen and as a journalist to fair treatment (guaranteed by Article 14) and the liberty to conduct an independent portrayal of views. In such a situation to require the petitioner to approach the respective High Courts having jurisdiction for quashing would result into a multiplicity of proceedings and unnecessary harassment to the petitioner, who is a journalist. (Para 33)

The issue concerning the registration of numerous FIRs and complaints covering different states is however, as we will explain, distinct from the investigation which arises from FIR 164 of 2020 at NM Joshi Marg Police Station in Mumbai. The petitioner, in the exercise of his right under Article 19(1)(a), is not immune from an investigation into the FIR which has been transferred from Police Station Sadar, District Nagpur City to NM Joshi Marg Police Station in Mumbai. This balance has to be drawn between the exercise of a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) and the investigation for an offence under the CrPC. All other FIRs in respect of the same incident constitute a clear abuse of process and must be quashed. (Para 34)

Constitution of India, 1950