Successive FIRs arising from one continuous transaction and satisfying the test of sameness are impermissible.

On 15 August 2021, petitioner Kuldeep Kumar, then MLA from Kondli, allegedly led a “Tiranga Yatra” in violation of COVID-19 restrictions, social-distancing requirements and prohibitory orders issued under the Disaster Management Act framework.

Three FIRs under Section 188 IPC were registered concerning the procession: FIR No. 353/2021 at P.S. New Ashok Nagar, FIR No. 413/2021 at P.S. Kalyanpuri, and FIR No. 372/2021 at P.S. Ghazipur.

The present petitions sought quashing of FIR Nos. 413/2021 and 372/2021 on the ground that all three FIRs arose from the same continuous procession and constituted impermissible successive FIRs.

The prosecution case was that the procession was observed at different locations and times—approximately 3:00 p.m. at Kalyanpuri, 5:00 p.m. near Ghazipur, and 5:15 p.m. at Dallupura—and that the participants continued despite directions to disperse.

Proceedings arising from FIR No. 353/2021 had already culminated in the conviction of Kuldeep Kumar and Ravinder under Section 188 IPC, with each being sentenced to pay a fine of ₹1,600.

Whether FIR Nos. 413/2021 and 372/2021 arose from the same continuous transaction as FIR No. 353/2021, thereby rendering their registration as successive FIRs impermissible under the “test of sameness”.

Whether continuation of the prosecutions arising from FIR Nos. 413/2021 and 372/2021, after conviction in FIR No. 353/2021, violated the protection against double jeopardy under Article 20(2) of the Constitution and Section 300 Cr.P.C.

The Court applied Section 482 Cr.P.C. to determine whether continuation of the impugned proceedings would constitute an abuse of process.

Under T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, a second FIR is ordinarily impermissible when it concerns the same cognizable offence or the same transaction, although further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. remains permissible.

Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash and Nirmal Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab recognise exceptions for counter-complaints, rival versions, larger conspiracies, newly discovered facts or distinct offences.

Under Babubhai v. State of Gujarat and Anju Chaudhary v. State of U.P., the Court must apply the “test of sameness” to determine whether FIRs concern the same incident, parts of the same transaction, or distinct incidents.

The Court also relied on State of Rajasthan v. Surendra Singh Rathore and Rutvij Bhagat Singh Wakhare v. State of Maharashtra, identifying unity of purpose and design, proximity of time and place, and continuity of action as relevant indicators of the same transaction.

Article 20(2) of the Constitution and Section 300 Cr.P.C. prohibit prosecution and punishment more than once for the same offence.

The Court found that all three FIRs concerned one Tiranga Yatra organised and led by Kuldeep Kumar on the same day, rather than separate rallies or assemblies.

The procession allegedly continued from approximately 3:00 p.m. to 5:15 p.m.; there was no prosecution allegation that it had ended, that the participants had dispersed, or that a fresh assembly had subsequently formed.

The locations were only about one to two kilometres apart, and the differences in police-station jurisdiction did not alter the continuity of the procession.

The allegations in each FIR were materially identical—absence of permission, non-use of masks, failure to maintain social distancing and violation of the same COVID-19 restrictions—while the principal offence alleged was Section 188 IPC.

Applying the test of sameness, the Court held that unity of purpose, temporal and geographical proximity, and continuity of action were established.

It rejected the State’s contention that every continued breach at a new location constituted an independent offence, reasoning that the procession had not terminated and recommenced as a distinct event.

Since Kuldeep Kumar and Ravinder had already been convicted in respect of the same continuous transaction, continuation of the remaining prosecutions would expose them to a second prosecution and potential punishment for the same offence.

The subsequent FIRs could not be sustained merely because the procession passed through different police-station jurisdictions or was observed by different police officers.

Accordingly, FIR No. 413/2021 registered at P.S. Kalyanpuri and FIR No. 372/2021 registered at P.S. Ghazipur, together with all consequential proceedings, were quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

The petitions were allowed and disposed of, along with the pending applications.