Successive FIRs Quashed - Test of Sameness (Unity, Proximity, Continuity) Applies to Transaction | Independence Day Procession : Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court set aside two FIRs registered after a single Independence Day procession, holding that multiple FIRs cannot arise from one continuous transaction and that proceeding with them would breach the constitutional protection against double jeopardy.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The petitioner, MLA Kuldeep Kumar, led a "Tiranga Yatra" on 15.08.2021, Independence Day, in the Kondli Assembly Constituency. The procession allegedly violated COVID-19 restrictions and prohibitory orders issued under the Disaster Management Act, attracting offence under Section 188 of the IPC.

Key Facts

• 15.08.2021: Tiranga Yatra conducted by MLA Kuldeep Kumar.
• GNCTD Order No. F-60 (DDMA) COVID-19/21/461 dated 08.08.2021 and ACP orders dated 09.08.2021 were in force.
• Three FIRs were registered:
  1. FIR No. 353/2021 at P.S. New Ashok Nagar (incident at 5:15 PM, Dallupura).
  2. FIR No. 413/2021 at P.S. Kalyanpuri (incident at 3:00 PM, 21 Block, Kalyanpuri).
  3. FIR No. 372/2021 at P.S. Ghazipur (incident at about 5:00 PM, Ghazipur).
• All FIRs allege violation of the same GNCTD Order and the same Section 188 IPC offence.
• Conviction in FIR No. 353/2021: judgment dated 29.10.2022, fine of Rs.1,600 imposed on 31.10.2022.

Procedural History

• 15.08.2021: Tiranga Yatra held.
• 2021: FIRs No. 353/2021, 413/2021 and 372/2021 registered.
• 29.10.2022: Conviction and fine in FIR No. 353/2021.
• 31.10.2022: Fine order pronounced.
• 2022: Petition CRL.M.C. 5853/2022 filed by Kuldeep Kumar seeking quash of FIR No. 413/2021.
• 2022: Petition CRL.M.C. 6910/2022 filed by Ravinder, Yogesh, Anita Bhatt and Dhirender seeking quash of FIR No. 413/2021.
• 2023: Petition CRL.M.C. 7326/2023 filed by Kuldeep Kumar seeking quash of FIR No. 372/2021.
• 27.04.2026: Judgment reserved.
• 03.08.2026: Judgment pronounced.

Parties' Positions

• Petitioners (Kuldeep Kumar, Ravinder et al.) argue that the FIRs are successive, arise from the same incident, and their continuation would violate Article 20(2) of the Constitution and Section 300 of the CrPC. They rely on T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. CBI and other Supreme Court precedents.
• The State contends that each FIR records a distinct act at different times and places, constituting separate offences, and therefore multiple FIRs are permissible.

Relief Sought

The petitioners seek quashing of FIR No. 413/2021 (P.S. Kalyanpuri) and FIR No. 372/2021 (P.S. Ghazipur) and setting aside all proceedings arising therefrom.

The Legal Issue

Whether the FIRs registered at different police stations for the Tiranga Yatra on 15.08.2021 constitute successive FIRs arising from a single transaction, thereby rendering them liable to be quashed and invoking the protection against double jeopardy under Article 20(2) of the Constitution and Section 300 of the CrPC.

Arguments Presented

For the Petitioners

• Successive FIRs are impermissible where they relate to the same cognizable offence or the same transaction; reliance on T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala and Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. CBI.
• Continuation of prosecution would breach Article 20(2) and Section 300 CrPC, amounting to double jeopardy.
• The "test of sameness" - unity of purpose, proximity of time and place, and continuity of action - must be applied; the three FIRs satisfy this test.

For the State

• Each FIR records a separate act of disobedience at different times (3:00 PM, 5:00 PM, 5:15 PM) and locations (Kalyanpuri, Ghazipur, New Ashok Nagar), constituting distinct offences.
• Precedents such as State of Jharkhand v. Lalu Prasad Yadav and Awadesh Kumar Jha v. State of Bihar allow multiple FIRs where the incidents are separate.
• The statutory framework under Section 154 CrPC does not absolutely prohibit registration of multiple FIRs.

The Court's Analysis

The Court first outlined the settled principle that a second FIR is generally barred when it pertains to the same cognizable offence or the same transaction, citing T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala and the subsequent clarification in Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash. The Court emphasized that the “test of sameness” requires examining (i) unity of purpose and design, (ii) proximity of time and place, and (iii) continuity of action.

"The three FIRs arise from one continuous transaction, i.e. the Tiranga Yatra taken out on 15.08.2021, and the FIRs refer to the alleged violation of the prohibitory orders and the COVID-19 protocols at different points of time as the same procession moved through different localities."

The Court then applied this test to the facts:

• Unity of incident: All FIRs stem from the same Tiranga Yatra organized by the petitioner.
• Continuity of action: The procession moved continuously from 3:00 PM to 5:15 PM, with no evidence of dispersal and re-assembly.
• Proximity: The locations were within 1-2 km of each other and the time gap was less than three hours.
• Nature of offence: Each FIR alleges the same violation of Section 188 IPC and the same GNCTD Order.
• Accused: The petitioner is named in all FIRs; variations in other named participants are explained by the size of the procession.

The Court rejected the State’s argument that separate police jurisdictions automatically create distinct offences, holding that jurisdictional differences alone do not alter the character of the incident. It further noted that permitting prosecution under the remaining FIRs would result in double jeopardy, contravening Article 20(2) and Section 300 CrPC.

Consequently, the Court affirmed that the three FIRs satisfy the test of sameness and must be treated as a single transaction. Accordingly, the successive FIRs cannot be maintained.

The Verdict

The petitioners succeeded. The Court quashed FIR No. 413/2021 (P.S. Kalyanpuri) and FIR No. 372/2021 (P.S. Ghazipur) and set aside all criminal proceedings arising therefrom. It held that the three FIRs emanated from a single Tiranga Yatra on 15.08.2021, and continuation of prosecution would violate the constitutional protection against double jeopardy.

What This Means For Similar Cases

Test of Sameness Is Controlling

• Practitioners must assess whether multiple FIRs satisfy the three-prong test of unity of purpose, temporal-geographical proximity, and continuity before arguing for their maintenance.
• Mere passage of a procession through different police jurisdictions does not, by itself, create separate transactions.

Double Jeopardy Bars Successive Prosecutions

• Once a conviction is secured for an offence arising from a particular transaction, any further FIR covering the same conduct will be barred under Article 20(2) and Section 300 CrPC.
• Lawyers should raise the double jeopardy defence early, citing the test of sameness.

When Multiple FIRs May Be Permissible

• A second FIR is maintainable if it involves a counter-complaint, a larger conspiracy uncovered later, or a distinct offence arising from new facts, as clarified in State of Rajasthan v. Surendra Singh Rathore and Rutvij Bhagat Singh Wakhare v. State of Maharashtra.
• Counsel should be prepared to demonstrate the presence of new factual matrix to sustain a subsequent FIR.