Patna High Court Quashes Second FIR, Upholds Principle of Single Transaction

In a significant ruling, the Patna High Court has quashed a second FIR, emphasizing the principle that a second FIR is admissible only when the allegations of the offense are distinct and separate from the first FIR concerning the same incident.

Case Overview: The writ petition sought the quashing of a case registered on February 5, 2017, under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 30(a), 38, and 41 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016. The case stemmed from a raid where a van transporting liquor stamped “for sale in Haryana only” was intercepted, leading to arrests.

Contentions: The petitioner contended that two separate cases filed by different police stations for the same transaction were unjustified. However, the respondents argued that the two FIRs were distinct in nature, involving different informants, accused persons, and locations.

Court’s Observations: The court noted that the entire incident, involving the transportation and illegal delivery of liquor in Bihar, constituted a single transaction. It emphasized that the accused committed the same offense under the Bihar Excise and Prohibition Act, 2016, irrespective of the multiple police stations involved in the investigation.

While recovery during investigations might be admissible as evidence, the court stressed that multiple discoveries in different police stations did not warrant separate trials. It reiterated that a second FIR is permissible only when the allegations of the offense are genuinely distinct from those in the first FIR related to the same incident.

Decision: In light of the principles governing the admissibility of second FIRs and considering the single transaction nature of the offense, the Patna High Court quashed the FIR registered on February 5, 2017, under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

Conclusion: The judgment underscores the importance of upholding the integrity of legal proceedings and ensuring fairness in the administration of justice. By quashing the second FIR, the court reaffirmed the principle of treating connected incidents as part of a single transaction, thereby preventing undue harassment and ensuring the effective administration of law.

Case Title: Ranjit Kumar v The State of Bihar & Ors.

Coram: Hon’ble Justice Bibek Chaudhuri

Case No.: Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.649 of 2017

Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev Ranjan

Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. Arvind Kumar