Bar on Multiple FIRs for a Single Continuous Procession Across Jurisdictions (Section 188 IPC) and Double Jeopardy After Prior Conviction

1. Introduction

The petitions arose from an Independence Day “Tiranga Yatra” on 15.08.2021 allegedly led by Kuldeep Kumar (then MLA, Kondli), said to have violated COVID-19 restrictions and prohibitory orders. Three FIRs under Section 188 IPC were registered at different police stations as the procession moved across localities: FIR No. 353/2021 (P.S. New Ashok Nagar), FIR No. 413/2021 (P.S. Kalyanpuri), and FIR No. 372/2021 (P.S. Ghazipur).

The present judgment concerned the maintainability of criminal proceedings arising from FIR No. 413/2021 and FIR No. 372/2021, especially because the proceedings in FIR No. 353/2021 had already culminated in conviction and sentence (fine) against Kuldeep Kumar (and Ravinder).

Core issues:

• Whether multiple FIRs could be sustained for the same “Tiranga Yatra” merely because it traversed different police station jurisdictions.
• Whether the “test of sameness” showed one continuous transaction or distinct incidents.
• Whether continuing prosecution after conviction in one FIR would offend the rule against double jeopardy (Article 20(2) and Section 300 Cr.P.C.).

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Delhi High Court quashed FIR No. 413/2021 (P.S. Kalyanpuri) and FIR No. 372/2021 (P.S. Ghazipur) and all consequential proceedings. It held that all three FIRs arose from a single continuous transaction—the same Tiranga Yatra—and therefore the impugned FIRs were impermissible successive FIRs failing the “test of sameness”.

Having found sameness/continuity, the Court further held that allowing prosecution to continue under the remaining FIRs after conviction in FIR No. 353/2021 would effectively expose the petitioners to multiple prosecutions for the same offence, contrary to Article 20(2) of the Constitution and Section 300 Cr.P.C.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited (and Their Role)

The judgment is anchored in the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence on successive FIRs, further investigation, and the “same transaction” inquiry.

• T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala: (2001) 6 SCC 181
  This is the foundational authority invoked by the petitioners and relied upon by the Court: ordinarily, there cannot be a second FIR for the same cognizable offence or the same transaction. The Court used it to frame the rule that successive FIRs (not being counter-cases) for the same incident/transaction constitute abuse of the investigative process; the proper course is further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C., not a fresh FIR-driven investigation.
• Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash: (2004) 13 SCC 292
  The Court used this to clarify the limits of T.T. Antony: the embargo does not bar a counter-complaint/cross-FIR or a rival version. It also notes that when a larger conspiracy/new material emerges, a subsequent FIR may be maintainable in appropriate circumstances. This helped the Court explain that the prohibition is not absolute.
• Nirmal Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab: (2009) 1 SCC 441
  Cited to support maintainability of a second FIR where a new discovery or larger conspiracy surfaces on a different factual foundation. The Court distinguished the present case from such “new discovery” situations.
• Babubhai v. State of Gujarat: (2010) 12 SCC 254
  This case supplied the operational tool: apply the “test of sameness” by examining whether the FIRs relate to the same incident/transaction. The High Court applied this test directly to the three FIRs concerning the yatra.
• Anju Chaudhary v. State of U.P.: (2013) 6 SCC 384
  Reinforced that generally there cannot be more than one FIR about the same occurrence; later information should ordinarily be treated as statements under Section 162 Cr.P.C. The judgment used it to emphasize safeguards rooted in fair investigation and prevention of police abuse.
• State of Rajasthan v. Surendra Singh Rathore: 2025 INSC 248
  The Court treated this as a recent consolidation of the law, listing circumstances where a second FIR is permissible (counter-version, different ambit, larger conspiracy, unknown facts, separate incident). This aided the Court’s structured reasoning that the present matter did not fit any permissible category.
• Rutvij Bhagat Singh Wakhare v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.: 2026 INSC 740
  The High Court relied on this “most recent” restatement: multiple FIRs are impermissible for the same incident/transaction; permissible for distinct incident/transaction. Importantly, it referenced State (NCT of Delhi) v. Khimji Bhai Jadeja and its “triple tests” for same transaction—(i) unity of purpose and design; (ii) proximity of time and place; (iii) continuity of action—which the High Court effectively applied to the moving yatra.
• State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal: 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
  Raised by the State to resist quashing and stress the limited scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C. The Court nonetheless found the case fit for quashing because the successive FIRs constituted an impermissible duplication on the same transaction.
• Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. Central Bureau Of Investigation: (2013) 6 SCC 348
  Relied upon by the petitioners to support the rule against multiple FIRs for the same transaction and to reinforce constraints on repeated investigations.
• State of Jharkhand v. Lalu Prasad Yadav: (2017) 8 SCC 1 and Awadesh Kumar Jha v. State of Bihar: (2016) 3 SCC 8
  Cited by the State for the proposition that separate FIRs can lie where similar offences are committed on separate occasions or where the later offence is not part of the same transaction. The High Court distinguished them by holding that here the prosecution itself alleged a single continuing procession rather than separate occasions.
• Additional authorities appeared within quoted extracts (e.g., Ram Lal Narang v. State (Delhi Admn.), Kari Choudhary, State of Bihar v. J.A.C. Saldanha, Reeta Nag v. State of W.B., Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali)—primarily to contextualize “further investigation” and the permissibility of counter-cases. They supported the broader doctrinal framing even though the decisive application turned on “sameness” and continuity.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

The Court proceeded in three clear steps.

1. Identifying the governing rule: no successive FIR for the same transaction
   The Court reiterated that while a second FIR is not absolutely barred, it is barred where it pertains to the same incident/same transaction (unless it is a counter-version or otherwise falls within recognised exceptions).
2. Applying the “test of sameness” to the three FIRs
   The Court compared the FIRs on time, place, allegations, accused, and narrative sequence. It concluded that they were different “sightings”/recordings of the same moving procession rather than separate incidents, emphasizing:
   • Unity of incident: all FIRs were founded on one Tiranga Yatra on 15.08.2021; the prosecution did not allege multiple rallies.
   • Continuity of action: no allegation that the yatra ended, people dispersed, and later reassembled afresh; it was pleaded as continuing movement.
   • Proximity of time and place: 3:00 PM to 5:15 PM, with locations about 1–2 km apart; consistent with a procession’s movement.
   • Identity of offence and allegations: the same core breach—COVID protocol/prohibitory order disobedience—attracting Section 188 IPC.
   • Overlap of principal accused: Kuldeep Kumar named in all; Ravinder in two; variation in named participants was treated as incidental given a large gathering.
   On this reasoning, the Court rejected the State’s argument that each entry into a new jurisdiction created a “fresh” Section 188 offence warranting a new FIR.
3. Double jeopardy consequence after conviction in one FIR
   Once the Court held that all FIRs were for the same transaction, it treated continued prosecution under the remaining FIRs—after conviction in FIR No. 353/2021—as exposing petitioners to repeated prosecution/punishment for the same offence on the same facts, contrary to Article 20(2) and Section 300 Cr.P.C.

3.3 Impact

• Operational guidance for policing multi-jurisdiction events: The judgment signals that where an alleged illegality is one continuous occurrence (like a moving procession), the police cannot multiply FIRs merely because the event traverses different police station jurisdictions. The lawful response is to proceed via a single FIR (with appropriate investigation/coordination), rather than duplicate prosecutions.
• Section 188 IPC prosecutions: The State’s “act-specific” framing was rejected on these facts. Future prosecutions under Section 188 IPC involving continuing conduct (marches, rallies, processions) will likely be tested for transactional unity; courts may scrutinize whether there was a real break (dispersal and reassembly) before treating later conduct as a distinct offence.
• Strengthening safeguards against repetitive criminal process: By coupling “sameness” with the double jeopardy principle once a conviction exists, the judgment discourages fragmented prosecutions that can cumulatively burden accused persons and courts for essentially the same incident.
• Preserving exceptions: The Court expressly clarified that it is not laying down that separate FIRs can never be registered for Section 188 IPC violations; it preserved established exceptions (distinct incident, counter-version, larger conspiracy, unknown facts).

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Successive (multiple) FIRs: More than one FIR registered for what is essentially the same incident/occurrence. Courts generally disallow this because it can lead to repeated investigations/prosecutions for the same event.
• Test of “sameness” / “same transaction”: A practical inquiry into whether alleged acts are part of one continuous narrative. The judgment (via the cited Supreme Court law) emphasizes factors like unity of purpose, proximity of time/place, and continuity of action.
• Further investigation (Section 173(8) Cr.P.C.): If new material arises in the same case/incident, police can conduct further investigation and file a supplementary report—this is different from registering a new FIR for the same transaction.
• Counter-FIR / rival version: A cross-complaint giving a different version of the same incident (often by the other side). This is permitted; it is not barred by the rule against successive FIRs.
• Double jeopardy: The constitutional/statutory bar (Article 20(2) and Section 300 Cr.P.C.) against being prosecuted and punished more than once for the same offence on the same facts—particularly relevant where one case has already ended in conviction/acquittal.
• Section 188 IPC: Punishes disobedience to an order duly promulgated by a public servant. In this case, the alleged disobedience was framed as breach of COVID-related prohibitory orders/guidelines.

5. Conclusion

KULDEEP KUMAR v. STATE NCT OF DELHI crystallizes a fact-sensitive but important principle: where the prosecution itself alleges a single, continuous event (here, one “Tiranga Yatra”), the State cannot sustain multiple FIRs under Section 188 IPC merely because the event was observed at different points or moved across police station jurisdictions. Applying the “test of sameness” (unity of purpose, proximity, continuity), the Court treated the FIRs as duplicative, quashed the later FIRs, and—given the earlier conviction—recognized that continued prosecution would offend the protection against double jeopardy.