Delhi High Court Quashes Two FIRs After Earlier Conviction for Same Tiranga Yatra Under Section 188 IPC
Facts
The petitions were filed under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of FIR No. 413/2021 registered at Police Station Kalyanpuri and FIR No. 372/2021 registered at Police Station Ghazipur for offences under Section 188 IPC.
The prosecution alleged that on 15 August 2021, the petitioner, Kuldeep Kumar, then MLA from Kondli Assembly Constituency, led a Tiranga Yatra in violation of COVID-19 restrictions and prohibitory orders issued under the Disaster Management framework.
Three separate FIRs came to be registered at different police stations—New Ashok Nagar, Kalyanpuri and Ghazipur—on the ground that the procession had passed through their respective jurisdictions.
The petitioners contended that all the FIRs arose from the same Tiranga Yatra, forming one continuous transaction. They further pointed out that proceedings arising out of FIR No. 353/2021 (P.S. New Ashok Nagar) had already culminated in conviction, making continuation of the remaining prosecutions impermissible.
Issues
- Whether the three FIRs arose from one continuous transaction or constituted separate and independent incidents.
- Whether registration of multiple FIRs merely because the procession passed through different police station jurisdictions was legally permissible.
- Whether continuation of the remaining prosecutions after conviction in one FIR violated the constitutional protection against double jeopardy.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioners contended that:
- All three FIRs related to one Independence Day Tiranga Yatra conducted on 15 August 2021.
- The rally merely traversed different police station jurisdictions and did not constitute separate incidents.
- Registration of successive FIRs violated the law laid down in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala and Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. CBI.
- Since Kuldeep Kumar and Ravinder had already been convicted in FIR No. 353/2021, continuation of the remaining prosecutions violated Article 20(2) of the Constitution and Section 300 CrPC.
- The subsequent FIRs therefore deserved to be quashed.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State argued that:
- The rally entered different police station jurisdictions and separate violations occurred at different places.
- The incidents were separated by both time and location, giving rise to independent causes of action.
- Every act of disobedience under Section 188 IPC constituted a distinct offence.
- Therefore, separate FIRs were legally maintainable.
- The plea of double jeopardy was inapplicable because each FIR related to a separate occurrence.
Analysis of the Law
The Court examined the principles governing registration of successive FIRs and the “test of sameness.”
It reiterated that:
- There is no absolute prohibition against multiple FIRs.
- However, successive FIRs cannot be registered where they arise from the same incident or the same transaction.
- The decisive test is whether there exists:
- unity of purpose and design;
- proximity of time and place; and
- continuity of action.
Where these factors exist, multiple FIRs would amount to abuse of the investigative process.
Precedent Analysis
The Court relied upon:
- T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala (2001) 6 SCC 181 — successive FIRs relating to the same transaction are impermissible.
- Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash (2004) 13 SCC 292 — clarifying exceptions relating to counter-cases and distinct offences.
- Nirmal Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab (2009) 1 SCC 441 — permitting second FIRs where new facts reveal a larger conspiracy.
- Babubhai v. State of Gujarat (2010) 12 SCC 254 — formulating the test of sameness.
- Anju Chaudhary v. State of U.P. (2013) 6 SCC 384 — reiterating that multiple FIRs for the same occurrence are impermissible.
- State of Rajasthan v. Surendra Singh Rathore (2025) — summarising the principles governing successive FIRs.
- Rutvij Bhagat Singh Wakhare v. State of Maharashtra (2026) — reaffirming that unity of purpose, proximity of time and place, and continuity of action determine whether multiple FIRs are maintainable.
Court’s Reasoning
Applying the test of sameness, the Court held that all three FIRs clearly arose from one continuous Tiranga Yatra.
The Court found:
- there was unity of incident, as the prosecution itself admitted that only one Tiranga Yatra had taken place;
- there was continuity of action, since the procession continuously moved from one locality to another without dispersing;
- there was proximity of time and place, as the alleged violations occurred between 3:00 PM and 5:15 PM on the same day and within a distance of approximately 1–2 kilometres; and
- the allegations, accused persons, COVID-19 notifications and offence under Section 188 IPC were substantially identical across all FIRs.
The Court rejected the State’s contention that every entry into a different police station jurisdiction created a fresh offence. It held that the mere movement of the same procession through different territorial limits could not transform one continuous transaction into multiple independent transactions.
Having held that all FIRs related to the same transaction, the Court further observed that prosecution in the remaining FIRs could not continue after the petitioners had already been convicted in one of them. Such repeated prosecutions would offend the protection against double jeopardy under Article 20(2) of the Constitution and Section 300 CrPC.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court held that the three FIRs arose from one continuous Tiranga Yatra and satisfied the test of sameness, making registration of successive FIRs legally unsustainable.
Accordingly, the Court quashed FIR No. 413/2021 (P.S. Kalyanpuri) and FIR No. 372/2021 (P.S. Ghazipur) along with all consequential proceedings, while clarifying that separate FIRs may still be maintainable where subsequent incidents are distinct, involve counter-cases or disclose a larger conspiracy.
Case Details
Case: Kuldeep Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Connected Matters
Court: Delhi High Court
Case Number: CRL.M.C. 5853/2022, CRL.M.C. 6910/2022 & CRL.M.C. 7326/2023
Judge: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
Date: 03 August 2026
Result: Petitions allowed. FIR No. 413/2021 (P.S. Kalyanpuri) and FIR No. 372/2021 (P.S. Ghazipur), along with all consequential proceedings, were quashed as impermissible successive FIRs arising from the same transaction.
