Woman filed two FIRs for same property fraud. SC says: enough.

She filed one FIR accusing him of forgery. Then she filed another—on the exact same facts. The Supreme Court of India stopped it cold: you cannot use the police to harass a person twice over the same piece of land.

The judgment came on August 23, 2022. A bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ajay Rastogi quashed the second FIR, the charge sheet (the formal list of evidence against the accused), and the magistrate's summoning order. One property in Varanasi had spawned two police complaints, a civil suit, and years of litigation. The court said: enough.

June 2006 – the deal

A group of property sellers signed an agreement to sell their undivided share in certain Varanasi properties. The buyer was the husband of a woman who would later become the complainant. The deal was worth Rs. 19,80,000. The buyer had already paid Rs. 15,00,000 as earnest money.

Then the buyer died.

The widow alleged that one of the sellers fraudulently sold his share to another person in 2013—seven years after the original agreement. She called it forgery, breach of trust, and criminal conspiracy.

April 2015 – the first FIR

The widow walked into the Bhelupur Police Station in Varanasi, the station's heavy wooden door creaking shut behind her, and filed her first FIR (First Information Report—a written complaint that starts a police investigation). It accused the sellers of criminal breach of trust (Section 406 IPC), cheating (Section 420 IPC), and forgery of valuable documents (Section 467 IPC).

The sellers immediately challenged the FIR before the Allahabad High Court under Section 482 CrPC (the High Court's inherent power to stop a case that should never have begun). On February 17, 2017, the High Court granted an interim order—the police could not take coercive action while the petition was pending. That petition sat undecided for years.

In 2017, the widow also filed a civil suit seeking specific performance (a court order compelling a party to do what they promised in a contract) before the Civil Court in Varanasi. That suit was also contested and pending.

September 2019 – the second FIR

Four years after the first FIR, the widow went back to the same Bhelupur Police Station. She filed a second FIR. The allegations were virtually identical: the same sellers, the same property, the same transaction, the same accusations of forgery and cheating. This time she added Section 471 IPC (using a forged document as genuine). The police station's register now bore two entries against the same accused for the same land.

The police investigated, and on July 12, 2019, filed a charge sheet. On the same day, a magistrate in Varanasi issued a summoning order—directing the sellers to appear in court to face trial in Criminal Case No. 480/2019.

The sellers went back to the High Court, asking it to quash the second FIR, the charge sheet, and the summoning order. The High Court refused on August 26, 2019. It said a prima facie case (a case that appears valid on first examination) had been made out. The sellers appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court saw the problem immediately

Both FIRs were filed by the same informant (the widow). Both were against the same accused (the sellers). Both arose from the same set of facts—the 2006 agreement and the alleged 2013 fraudulent sale.

The court held that allowing multiple FIRs on the same facts by the same person is an abuse of the process of law. It cited two earlier judgments—Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash (2004) and T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala (2001)—which had already established that successive FIRs on the same facts cannot stand. The courtroom fell silent as the bench read out its reasoning: "If multiple First Information Reports by the same person against the same accused are permitted to be registered in respect of the same set of facts and allegations, it will result in the accused getting entangled in multiple criminal proceedings for the same alleged offence. The registration of such multiple FIRs is abuse of the process of law."

Then the court went further. It said registering multiple FIRs on identical facts violates two fundamental constitutional rights: Article 21 (the right to life and personal liberty) and Article 22 (protection against arrest and detention). The reasoning was blunt: "The act of registration of successive FIRs on the same set of facts and allegations at the instance of the same informant will not stand the scrutiny of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India." If a person can be dragged into multiple criminal proceedings for the same alleged act, their liberty is under constant threat. They can be arrested, summoned, and tried repeatedly—even though the underlying facts have not changed.

THE PLAY: If a client faces a second FIR on identical facts from the same complainant, move immediately under Section 482 CrPC citing Articles 21 and 22—the Supreme Court has now made it clear that such successive complaints are constitutionally unsustainable.

The procedural journey in full

The case, Tarak Dash Mukharjee & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., had wound its way through multiple forums before reaching the Supreme Court. The first FIR, registered on April 2, 2015, at Bhelupur Police Station, triggered a petition under Section 482 CrPC before the Allahabad High Court. On February 17, 2017, the High Court granted an interim order restraining coercive action against the sellers—that petition remained pending. Meanwhile, in 2017, the widow filed a civil suit for specific performance in the Civil Court at Varanasi, which was also contested and pending.

Then came the second FIR, registered on September 13, 2019, at the same police station. The sellers again approached the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, and on April 11, 2019, the court directed that no arrest be made until the charge sheet was filed. The police completed their investigation and filed a charge sheet on July 12, 2019. On the same day, the Court of ACJM, Varanasi passed a summoning order in Criminal Case No. 480/2019, directing the sellers to appear. The sellers filed a fresh Section 482 petition challenging the charge sheet and summoning order, but the High Court dismissed it on August 26, 2019, holding that a prima facie case had been made out. That dismissal brought the sellers to the Supreme Court.

The court's reasoning

The Supreme Court examined the factual matrix closely. The agreement for sale dated June 14, 2006, covered a 5/6th undivided share in specified properties in Varanasi. The first FIR, registered in 2015, invoked Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code—alleging criminal breach of trust, cheating, forgery, and criminal intimidation. The second FIR, registered in 2019, invoked Sections 419, 420, 406, 467, 468, and 471—substantially identical allegations, with the addition of Section 471 (using a forged document as genuine).

The court found that both FIRs were by the same informant, against the same accused, on the same facts, and quashed the second FIR, charge sheet, and summoning order as abuse of process. The operative order was unequivocal: FIR No. 0177 of 2019 registered at Bhelupur Police Station in District Varanasi, the charge sheet dated July 12, 2019, and the summoning order of the same date from the Court of ACJM, Varanasi in Criminal Case No. 480/2019 were all quashed and set aside. No order as to costs.

What this means for property disputes

For practitioners, the takeaway is sharp. In property disputes, a complainant often files criminal cases—alleging forgery, cheating, or breach of trust—to pressure the other side. If the first FIR does not yield the desired result, the temptation is to file a second one, hoping for a different magistrate or a more aggressive investigation.

This judgment closes that door. One set of facts, one FIR. You cannot keep filing fresh complaints until you get the outcome you want. The court called it an abuse of process—and backed it with constitutional rights. The second FIR, the charge sheet dated July 12, 2019, and the summoning order of the same date from the Court of ACJM, Varanasi in Criminal Case No. 480/2019 were all quashed. The sellers could breathe. But the first FIR was still pending before the High Court. The legal battle over the Varanasi property was not over—but at least it was no longer two battles.