Case Title: Rohith Giri vs State of Kerela
Case No: WP (CRL.) NO. 1349 OF 2023
Decided on: 04.01.2024
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas
Facts of the Case
The petitioner, residing in Uttar Pradesh, finds himself embroiled in a multitude of criminal complaints across the state. He asserts that respondents 8 to 23 are engaged in a concerted effort to harass him by initiating numerous First Information Reports (FIRs) throughout the state. Despite the existence of these pre-existing FIRs, filed by the aforementioned respondents, only one has progressed to the stage of a final report. The petitioner contends that the registration of further FIRs based on identical factual circumstances contravenes established legal precedent, specifically the Supreme Court’s ruling in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala & Ors. (2001) 6 SCC 181. Hence, he seeks for the direction commanding the State Police Chief to issue directions to prevent registration of any further FIRs against him on the same set of facts.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that further registration of the FIR on the same set of facts is contrary to law, and therefore, petitioner will be subjected to great prejudice, if repeated FIRs are filed.
The learned Public Prosecutor, in rejoinder, countered the petitioner’s arguments. He asserted that the investigative officer’s authority cannot be curtailed by general orders issued under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This rationale finds further support in the petitioner’s own apprehension, which relates solely to the potential filing of FIRs based on future complaints from respondents 8 to 23. In other words, the Public Prosecutor argued that the petitioner’s concerns are speculative and premature, precluding intervention via writ jurisdiction under Article 226.
Issues
Whether the court has jurisdiction to issue blanket directions against registration of crime?
Legal Provision
Article 226 of The Indian Constitution
Power of High Courts to issue certain writs
- Notwithstanding anything in Article 32 every High Court shall have powers, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercise jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibitions, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose
Court Analysis and Decision
Having heard both the sides of argument, the court was satisfied that the reliefs claimed could not be granted.
Invocation of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is inappropriate in this instance to impose blanket restrictions on the registration of criminal complaints. The Kerela High Court, in concurrence with the Supreme Court, has consistently expressed disapproval towards the issuance of general directives, particularly pertaining to investigations and the registration of First Information Reports (FIRs). Each FIR necessitates individual evaluation based on the specific allegations it presents. It is too premature to assume that respondents 8 to 23 may file complaints against the petitioner based on a similar set of facts. Those are purely within the realm of assumptions and apprehensions.
Any potential remedies available to the petitioner based on the dictum in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala & Ors. (2001) 6 SCC 181 or any established legal position would be contingent upon the future, concrete registration of criminal complaints.
Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, since no merit was found.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Bhawana Bahety
