Establishing the Legality of Multiple FIRs for Distinct Offences: A Landmark Ruling in
GARGIAN SUDHEERAN v. STATE OF KERALA

1. Introduction

The Kerala High Court, in the matter of GARGIAN SUDHEERAN v. STATE OF KERALA, dealt with two Criminal Miscellaneous Cases (Crl.MC Nos. 11327/2023 and 4154/2024) filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). The petitioner, Mr. Gargian Sudheeran, stood accused under provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (PoCSO Act) for revealing, through social media, the identity of a minor victim involved in a separate ongoing prosecution (Crime No. 2113/2016).

The critical legal issue before the Court was whether it is permissible for multiple First Information Reports (FIRs) to be registered and prosecuted against the same accused for allegedly repeating the same type of offence (disclosure of the victim’s identity) on different occasions. The petitioner, who argued that the second FIR was essentially the same as the first, sought to have both quashed on the grounds of potential double jeopardy and abuse of process.

This commentary delves into the Court’s decision, explaining how it clarifies the threshold for allowing multiple FIRs for separate and distinct offences. It also illustrates how the judiciary balances the accused’s rights with protecting the victim’s identity under the PoCSO Act.

2. Summary of the Judgment

In its ruling issued on January 13, 2025, the Kerala High Court dismissed both petitions seeking to quash the proceedings. The Court found that:

The allegations in the first FIR (Crime No. 2/2023) concern the accused’s disclosure of the victim’s identity on May 28, 2022.
The second FIR (Crime No. 516/2023) pertains to subsequent disclosures of the same victim’s identity on two later dates, March 11, 2023, and March 23, 2023.
Because the alleged disclosures were made on separate occasions, each instance constitutes a distinct offence and therefore can be prosecuted independently.
There is no violation of the prohibition against multiple FIRs for the “same” offence, as each FIR addresses a unique occurrence and point in time.
Consequently, the Court held that it would not be an abuse of process to proceed with both FIRs, as long as they are genuinely based on different revelations of the victim’s identity.

The Court thus refused to quash the proceedings and vacated any interim stay orders, directing that the trials in both SC No. 708/2023 (arising out of Crime No. 2/2023) and SC No. 184/2024 (arising out of Crime No. 516/2023) should continue.

3. Analysis

a) Precedents Cited

The Court referred to various decisions illustrating the principle that registering multiple FIRs for the same occurrence is impermissible, as it risks subjecting an accused to multiple prosecutions for identical acts. Some of these precedents included:

Abhishek Singh Chauhan v. Union of India (2022 LiveLaw (SC) 608)
Tarak Dash Mukharjee & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2022 LiveLaw (SC) 731)
Babubhai v. State of Gujarat & Ors. (2010 KHC 4608)
Krishna Lal Chawla & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Anr. (2021 LiveLaw (SC) 145)

These decisions affirm the principle that when a set of facts is the same, registering multiple FIRs is an abuse of process and cannot stand constitutional scrutiny under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. However, where new facts or separate occurrences are drawn, the law permits distinct FIRs.

b) Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning hinges on the interpretation of whether the two contested FIRs derive from the “same occurrence” or “separate acts.” While the petitioner argued that the second FIR was a duplication of the earlier one—both concerning the same alleged posting of the victim’s identity—the Court meticulously distinguished:

The first FIR was lodged for alleged disclosures on May 28, 2022, which had already culminated in a final report by February 14, 2023.
The second FIR, however, was premised on entirely separate dates—March 11, 2023, and March 23, 2023—indicating repeated infractions rather than a duplication of the same event.

Since the law protects the privacy of child sexual abuse victims, each disclosure (if proven) violates the PoCSO Act independently. The Court concluded that these are, in essence, multiple offences attracting corresponding multiple prosecutions.

c) Impact

This ruling sets a clear precedent for handling repeated, discrete offences that arise from similar circumstances but occur at different times. It fosters a more nuanced understanding of:

Child Protection Laws: Reinforces that each individual act of revealing a victim’s identity can be prosecuted. This guards the victim’s right to anonymity and underscores the gravity with which the courts treat offences involving children under the PoCSO Act.
Multiple FIRs and Abuse of Process: Clarifies that multiple FIRs are not automatically disallowed; they must be scrutinized to see whether they address distinctly separate incidents.
Judicial Efficiency: Encourages enforcement and the courts to delineate properly each distinct contravention. This precedent ensures there is no conflation of non-identical events into one omnibus FIR, which could undermine the administration of justice.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Multiple FIRs: Although the law disfavors multiple FIRs for a single offence, distinct events or repeated actions can justify additional FIRs, even when they involve the same parties.
Double Jeopardy: A constitutional principle prohibiting individuals from being tried or punished twice for the same offence. In this case, the Court clarifies that trying the accused for different incidents does not violate double jeopardy since each disclosure was on a separate date.
Section 23 of the PoCSO Act: This provision prohibits the disclosure of the identity of a child in conflict with or in contact with the law. A violation occurs each time the identity is made public.
Section 482 of Cr.P.C.: The inherent powers of the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of the courts or to secure the ends of justice. Petitioners commonly invoke it to quash FIRs or criminal proceedings.

5. Conclusion

The Kerala High Court’s decision in GARGIAN SUDHEERAN v. STATE OF KERALA decisively reiterates that while the judiciary will protect accused persons from multiple charges for the same occurrence, acts carried out at different times constitute separate occurrences. Consequently, distinct sets of actions—especially those contravening protective legislation for minors—will sustain multiple FIRs.

The Judgment underscores the Court’s strong stance on safeguarding victims’ rights under the PoCSO Act and clarifies the limits of defensive pleas such as double jeopardy or abuse of process. It imparts guiding clarity to law-enforcement agencies and legal practitioners on prosecuting sequential violations that share similar qualities but are separated in time.

Overall, this ruling will shape how future cases are assessed where multiple complaints revolve around analogous, yet chronologically distinct, infringements of child protection norms.

Establishing the Legality of Multiple FIRs for Distinct Offences: A Landmark Ruling in GARGIAN SUDHEERAN v. STATE OF KERALA