Allahabad High Court Upholds Multiple FIRs Against Chandrashekhar for Saharanpur Violence

Court Dismisses Plea to Quash FIRs, Cites Larger Conspiracy and Distinct Ambits of FIRs

In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has dismissed applications filed by Chandrashekhar alias Ravan, a sitting MLA, seeking to quash multiple FIRs lodged against him in connection with the violence that erupted in Saharanpur in May 2017. The court, presided over by Justice Sameer Jain, held that subsequent FIRs are permissible when they relate to distinct incidents, times, and places, even if they arise from the same transaction or reveal a larger conspiracy.

Chandrashekhar, represented by Senior Advocate Sushil Shukla, argued that the FIRs related to the same transaction and should either be quashed or treated as supplementary to the first FIR. The FIRs in question were lodged following a series of violent incidents on May 9, 2017, allegedly involving members of the Bheem Army, led by Chandrashekhar.

The court noted that while the incidents occurred on the same day, they were distinct in terms of location, time, and the individuals involved. Referencing landmark judgments, including T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala and Babubhai v. State of Gujarat, the court emphasized that subsequent FIRs are valid if they involve separate incidents or reveal new facts, such as a larger conspiracy.

The State, represented by Additional Advocate General Manish Goyal, argued that the FIRs were lodged by different individuals at different locations, making them distinct. The court agreed, noting that the ambit of each FIR was different and that treating them as supplementary charge-sheets was not justified.

The ruling also highlighted that trials based on these FIRs are underway, with several prosecution witnesses already examined. The court concluded that quashing the FIRs at this stage would not be appropriate.

Bottom Line:

Subsequent FIRs arising from incidents within the same transaction but involving different places, times, and individuals are permissible if the ambit and incidents of the FIRs are distinct, and they may not be quashed even if they relate to a larger conspiracy or similar offences.

Statutory provision(s): Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 482

Chandrashekhar Alias Ravan v. State of U.P., (Allahabad) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2823037