Lodging of Subsequent FIRs of same incident: A Critical analysis. Author- Praveen Kr. Yadav & Rashmi Yadav Our present legal system has its roots dating back to the 19th century. The first Law Commission was established during the British Raj era in 1834 by the Charter Act of 1833.It was presided over by Lord Macaulay. After that, three more Commissions were established in pre-independent India. It suggested various enactments to the British Government, most of which were passed and enacted and are still in force in India. Few of the most important recommendations made by this First Law Commission were those on, Indian Penal Code (first submitted in 1837 but enacted in 1860 and still in force), Criminal Procedure Code (enacted in 1898, repealed and succeeded by the Criminal Procedure Code of 1973), etc. Thereafter three more Law Commissions were established which made a number of other recommendations the Indian Evidence Act (1872) and Indian Contract Act (1872), etc. being some of the significant ones. The process which started by the Britisher’s in the 19th century is still developing. The Indian legal system has transformed to a great extent in 1950 with the commencement of Constitution of India.1 The constitution of India which is the fundamental law of the land provides under Article 372 that continuance in force of existing laws and their adaptations. Article 372 of the Constitution of India is reproduced below: - 372. Continuance in force of existing laws and their adaptation (1) Notwithstanding the repeal by this Constitution of the enactments referred to in Article 395 but subject to the other provisions of this 1 Constitution of India Article 372 Lodging of Subsequent FIRs of same incident: A Critical analysis. Author- Praveen Kr. Yadav & Rashmi Yadav Constitution, all the laws in force in the territory of India immediately before the commencement of this Constitution, all the laws in force in the territory of India immediately before the commencement of this Constitution shall continue in force therein until altered or repealed or amended by a competent Legislature or other competent authority (2) For the purpose of bringing the provisions of any law in force in the territory of India into accord with the provisions of this Constitution, the President may by order make such adaptations and modifications of such law, whether by way of repeal or amendment, as may be necessary or expedient, and provide that the law shall, as from such date as may be specified in the order, have effect subject to the adaptations and modifications so made, and any such adaptation or modification shall not be questioned in any court of law (3) Nothing in clause (2) shall be deemed (a) to empower the President to make any adaptation or modification of any law after the expiration of three years from the commencement of this Constitution; or (b) to prevent any competent Legislature or other competent authority from repealing or amending any law adapted or modified by the President under the said clause. Explanation I- The expression law in force in this article shall include a law passed or made by a legislature or other competent authority in the territory of India before the commencement of this Constitution and not previously repealed, notwithstanding that it or parts of it may not be then in operation either at all or in particular areas. Explanation II- Any law passed or made by a legislature or other competent authority in the territory of India which immediately before the Lodging of Subsequent FIRs of same incident: A Critical analysis. Author- Praveen Kr. Yadav & Rashmi Yadav commencement of this Constitution had extra territorial effect as well as effect in the territory of India shall, subject to any such adaptations and modifications as aforesaid, continue to have such extra territorial effect. Explanation III Nothing in this article shall be construed as continuing any temporary law in force beyond the date fixed for its expiration or the date on which it would have expired if this Constitution had not come into force. Explanation IV- An Ordinance promulgated by the Governor of a Province under Section 88 of the Government of India Act, 1935 , and in force immediately before the commencement of this Constitution shall, unless withdrawn by the Governor of the corresponding State earlier, cease to operate at the expiration of six weeks from the first meeting after such commencement of the Legislative Assembly of that State functioning under clause ( 1 ) of Article 382, and nothing in this article shall be construed as continuing any such Ordinance in force beyond the said period. From the above discussion it can be concluded that a pre constitutional law will remain in force unless altered or repealed or amended by a competent legislature or other competent authority. One such law was Code of Criminal Procedure1898, which was in force till 1973 when it was ultimately repealed by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. However, the Code of Criminal Procedure is not exhaustive one and it has certain grey areas which needs interpretation by the Constitutional Courts or amendment by the competent authority whereby the lacunas of Code of Criminal Procedure can be addressed. In this article we are dealing with one such problem of the Code of Criminal Procedure where there is no certainty about lodging of second or subsequent information after lodging of First Information Report (popularly known as “FIR”). The First Information Report which is basically the first step towards the initiation of criminal machinery into motion whenever a crime Lodging of Subsequent FIRs of same incident: A Critical analysis. Author- Praveen Kr. Yadav & Rashmi Yadav has been committed. However, it is pertinent to mention here that the First Information Report2 is nowhere defined under the Code of Criminal Procedure or Indian Penal Code. The relevant section which deals with the lodging of First Information Report is Section 154, 155 and 157 Cr.P.C. The lodging of First Information Report is mandatory for the police in case of cognizable offences. This is well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case of Lalita Kumari V. Government of Uttar Pradesh.3 The First Information Report should contain at least some information about the crime committed as also some information about the manner in which the cognizable offence has been committed, cryptic message recording of an occurrence cannot be termed as First Information Report. Now the question that arises here is that what would happen in a case where the police received the information regarding the commission of offence more than once? If two First Information Reports have been lodged of the same incident what is the fate of it? What would happen to the subsequent First Information Report? These questions have been dealt by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments one such leading case on this point is T T Antony V. State of Kerala and Others4 whereby the Hon’ble apex court laid down following proposition of law:- 18. An information given under sub-section (1) of Section 154 of Cr.P.C. is commonly known as First Information Report (F.I.R.) though this term is not used in the Code. It is a very important document. And as its nick name suggests it is the earliest and the first information of a cognizable offence recorded by an officer in charge of a police station. It sets the criminal law 2 Criminal Procedure Code Section 154 – Information in Cognizable Cases Criminal Procedure Code Section 155 – Information as to Non Cognizable cases and investigation of such cases Criminal Procedure Code Section 157- Procedure for Investigation 3 3 Lalita Kumari V State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 2014 SCC 187. 4 T T Antony V. State of Kerala and Others 2001 6 SCC 181 Lodging of Subsequent FIRs of same incident: A Critical analysis. Author- Praveen Kr. Yadav & Rashmi Yadav into motion and marks the commencement of the investigation which ends up with the formation of opinion under Section 169 or 170 of Cr.P.C5., as the case may be, and forwarding of a police report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. It is quite possible and it happens not infrequently that more information than one is given to a police officer in charge of a police station in respect of the same incident involving one or more than one cognizable offences. In such a case he need not enter every one of them in the station house diary and this is implied in Section 154 of Cr.P.C6. Apart from a vague information by a phone call or a cryptic telegram, the information first entered in the station house diary, kept for this purpose, by a police officer in charge of a police station is the First Information Report - F.I.R. postulated by Section 154 of Cr.P.C. All other information made orally or in writing after the commencement of the investigation into the cognizable offence disclosed from the facts mentioned in the First Information Report and entered in the station house diary by the police officer or such other cognizable offences as may come to his notice during the investigation, will be statements falling under Section 162 of Cr.P.C7. No such information/statement can properly be treated as an F.I.R. and entered in the station house diary again, as it would in effect be a second FIR and the same cannot be in conformity with the scheme of the Cr.P.C. The Hon’ble apex court again dealt with the aforementioned question in Nirmal Singh Kahlon V.