The Court noted that an FIR had already being registered on the same cause of action and grounds in Jaipur, Rajasthan.
A Delhi court yesterday dismissed a plea seeking registration of FIR against Swami Ramdev, Acharya Ramakrishna, Patanjali and others for falsely claiming that they have found a cure for COVID-19. (Tushar Anand vs State & Ors)
The order was passed by Metropolitan Magistrate Sumeet Anand in an application under Section 156(3) CrPC by one Tushar Anand (Complainant).
In connection with the claim of having found a cure for COVID-19, the Complainant had sought FIR against Ramdev and others for commission of offences under Sections 270/420/504/120B/34 IPC, Sections 33E read with 33I of Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940 for the offence of misbranded drugs and Section 7 of Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954.
As per the Complainant, he had made a complaint to the SHO Vasant Vihar, as well as the DCP concerned, but no action was taken.
Pursuant to an order issued by the court, the Police filed a status report stating that there was no need to issue an FIR in the case.
It was stated that :
- An FIR bearing no 144/2020 had already been registered under Section 420 IPC at Police station Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan on the same cause of action and grounds.
- AYUSH Ministry had allowed the sale of 'Coronil' as an immunity booster and in case of any grievance, the Complainant should approach the Ministry.
- The press conference during which 'Coronil' was launched was held at Haridwar, Uttrakhand which is beyond the jurisdiction of Delhi Police.
In view of the fact that an FIR had already been registered in Jaipur, the Court analysed the law with respect to registration of multiple FIR.
The Court relied upon the Supreme Court's order in Arnab Ranjan Goswami vs UOI to state that once an FIR has been recorded in terms of Section 154 CrPC, there can be no second FIR when the information concerns the same cognizable offence which is found to have been committed in the course of the same transaction or occurrence.
The Court noted that the content of the application before it was the same as the content of FIR registered at Jaipur and the application was, in fact, the English translation of the FIR.
It thus concluded,
"..once there is already an FIR registered with respect to a cause of action, as raised by the complainant herein, which is under investigation, there is no occassion for this court to order registration of another FIR on the same cause of action, which will have the effect of registration of multiple FIRs against the same accused for the same cause of action in different states."
The Court stated that the issue of the addition of other accused persons and provisions of law may be contested by the Complainant before the court of competent jurisdiction with respect to the Jaipur FIR.
The application was accordingly dismissed.
Advocates Lalit Valecha and Manu Prabhakar appeared for Complainant.
Read the Order:
