The Delhi High Court yesterday quashed four out of five First Information Reports (FIRs) filed against a Delhi Riots accused in respect of the same offence registered against him (Atir v. State of NCT Delhi)..Five FIRs were filed against the applicant by different members of the same family, alleging that he had set their houses in Maujpur on fire during the Delhi Riots of February 2020.These properties were in close proximity with each other, and situated within the boundaries of the same compound. .Advocate Tara Narula, appearing for the applicant, contended that consecutive FIRs cannot be filed in respect of the same offence, as the same is against the principles laid down in the case of TT Antony v. State of Kerala. It was laid down in that case that more than one FIR cannot be registered for one offence..Appearing for the State, Special Public Prosecutor Anuj Handa submitted that the petition is ill-conceived, and must be dismissed summarily.He relied on a map of the area to demonstrate that all FIRs have been filed in respect of distinct properties and that the subject matter of each of the FIRs was different from the others.Further, he submitted that the damage incurred by the residents of the premises have individually suffered. .After hearing both the parties, the Court noted that all the FIRs were identical in their content. They all pertained to one house where the fire was started mischievously and spread to immediate neighbouring premises as well as floors of the same house."It may be so that the properties are different or distinct from one another but are located in one compound. It is also to be noted that most of the houses in the said compound belong to the same family and were owned by different members of the family after being divided by their forefathers," Justice Subramonium Prasad noted.In view of the principle laid down by the apex court in TT Antony, the Court set aside the FIRs, observing,"There can be no second FIR and no fresh investigation in respect of the same cognizable offense or same occurrence giving rise to one or more cognizable offenses".[Read order]
The Delhi High Court yesterday quashed four out of five First Information Reports (FIRs) filed against a Delhi Riots accused in respect of the same offence registered against him (Atir v. State of NCT Delhi)..Five FIRs were filed against the applicant by different members of the same family, alleging that he had set their houses in Maujpur on fire during the Delhi Riots of February 2020.These properties were in close proximity with each other, and situated within the boundaries of the same compound. .Advocate Tara Narula, appearing for the applicant, contended that consecutive FIRs cannot be filed in respect of the same offence, as the same is against the principles laid down in the case of TT Antony v. State of Kerala. It was laid down in that case that more than one FIR cannot be registered for one offence..Appearing for the State, Special Public Prosecutor Anuj Handa submitted that the petition is ill-conceived, and must be dismissed summarily.He relied on a map of the area to demonstrate that all FIRs have been filed in respect of distinct properties and that the subject matter of each of the FIRs was different from the others.Further, he submitted that the damage incurred by the residents of the premises have individually suffered. .After hearing both the parties, the Court noted that all the FIRs were identical in their content. They all pertained to one house where the fire was started mischievously and spread to immediate neighbouring premises as well as floors of the same house."It may be so that the properties are different or distinct from one another but are located in one compound. It is also to be noted that most of the houses in the said compound belong to the same family and were owned by different members of the family after being divided by their forefathers," Justice Subramonium Prasad noted.In view of the principle laid down by the apex court in TT Antony, the Court set aside the FIRs, observing,"There can be no second FIR and no fresh investigation in respect of the same cognizable offense or same occurrence giving rise to one or more cognizable offenses".[Read order]