Multiple FIRs – Quashing of – Governing principles. Held, where two or
more FIRs relate to same incident or relate to incidents which form part of
same transactions, subsequent FIRs are liable to be quashed. There can
be no second FIR where information concerns the same cognisable
offence alleged in the first FIR or the same occurrence or incident which
gives rise to one or more cognisable offences. This is because
investigation covers not only alleged cognisable offence but also other
connected offences. But subsequent FIR relating to different incidents or
crimes is maintainable. Filing of a second complaint in regard to same
incident as a counter complaint is also not precluded nor is this course of
action prohibited by CrPC. TT Antony’s case, referred. (Paras 28-30.1)

Multiple FIRs – Quashing of – A programme telecasted on R Bharat on
21.4.2020 by petitioner (journalist) became the foundation of the allegation
of commission of offences under the provisions of Sections 153, 153A,
153B, 295A, 298, 500, 504 and 506 IPC – On basis of this cause of action,
several FIRs and criminal complaints lodged against him in different States
and UT of J & K – Whether multiple FIRs need to be quashed. Held, yes.
Except main FIR [FIR 238 of 2020 dated 22.4.2020] all other FIRs need to
be quashed. This is because all FIRs or complaints arose out of one and
the same incident and had same cause of action. Complaints were worded
in identical terms. Even language, content and sequencing of paragraphs
and their numbering were identical. Therefore subsequent FIRs were an
abuse of process of law and are quashed. (Para 31)

Ed. : Quashing of those FIRs would not amount to expression of any
opinion by Supreme Court on merits of the main FIR.
Constitution of India, 1950

Articles 19(1)(a), 14, 32 – Whether multiple FIRs filed against petitioner
(journalist) in different States on basis of same cause of action can be
quashed in exercise of power under Article 32. Held, yes. Article 32
recognises the constitutional duty of Supreme Court to protect fundamental
rights of citizens. Filing of multiple complaints in multiple states and
jurisdictions bearing same foundation has a stifling effect on petitioner's
right to speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) and to fair
treatment guaranteed by Article 14. This also adversely affects the freedom
of a citizen to know of the affairs of the nation and the right of a journalist to
ensure an informed society. Though exercise of fundamental right is
subject to restrictions but State must ensure least restrictive measure to
achieve its aim. In present case, subjecting a journalist to multiple
complaints and requiring him to pursue remedies before different High
Courts is not the least restrictive method of prosecuting crime. This would
result in multiplicity of proceedings and cause unnecessary harassment.
Therefore, intervention of Supreme Court is warranted. Except main FIR,
all other FIRs quashed. Main FIR would survive as petitioner is not immune
from investigation. A balance has to be drawn between exercise of
fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) and investigation of an offence
under CrPC.
HELD
Article 32 of the Constitution constitutes a recognition of the constitutional
duty entrusted to this Court to protect the fundamental rights of citizens.
The exercise of journalistic freedom lies at the core of speech and
expression protected by Article 19(1)(a). The petitioner is a media
journalist. The airing of views on television shows which he hosts is in the
exercise of his fundamental right to speech and expression under Article
19(1)(a). India's freedoms will rest safe as long as journalists can speak to
power without being chilled by a threat of reprisal. The exercise of that
fundamental right is not absolute and is answerable to the legal regime
enacted with reference to the provisions of Article 19(2). But to allow a
journalist to be subjected to multiple complaints and to the pursuit of
remedies traversing multiple states and jurisdictions when faced with
successive FIRs and complaints bearing the same foundation has a stifling
effect on the exercise of that freedom. This will effectively destroy the
freedom of the citizen to know of the affairs of governance in the nation and

the right of the journalist to ensure an informed society. Our decisions hold
that the right of a journalist under Article 19(1)(a) is no higher than the right
of the citizen to speak and express. But we must as a society never forget
that one cannot exist without the other. Free citizens cannot exist when the
news media is chained to adhere to one position. (Para 32)
A litany of our decisions – to refer to them individually would be a parade of
the familiar – has firmly established that any reasonable restriction on
fundamental rights must comport with the proportionality standard, of which
one component is that the measure adopted must be the least restrictive
measure to effectively achieve the legitimate state aim. Subjecting an
individual to numerous proceedings arising in different jurisdictions on the
basis of the same cause of action cannot be accepted as the least
restrictive and effective method of achieving the legitimate state aim in
prosecuting crime. The manner in which the petitioner has been subjected
to numerous FIRs in several States, besides the Union Territories of
Jammu and Kashmir on the basis of identical allegations arising out of the
same television show would leave no manner of doubt that the intervention
of this Court is necessary to protect the rights of the petitioner as a citizen
and as a journalist to fair treatment (guaranteed by Article 14) and the
liberty to conduct an independent portrayal of views. In such a situation to
require the petitioner to approach the respective High Courts having
jurisdiction for quashing would result into a multiplicity of proceedings and
unnecessary harassment to the petitioner, who is a journalist. (Para 33)
The issue concerning the registration of numerous FIRs and complaints
covering different states is however, as we will explain, distinct from the
investigation which arises from FIR 164 of 2020 at NM Joshi Marg Police
Station in Mumbai. The petitioner, in the exercise of his right under Article
19(1)(a), is not immune from an investigation into the FIR which has been
transferred from Police Station Sadar, District Nagpur City to NM Joshi
Marg Police Station in Mumbai. This balance has to be drawn between the
exercise of a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) and the investigation
for an offence under the CrPC. All other FIRs in respect of the same
incident constitute a clear abuse of process and must be quashed. (Para
34)

Constitution of India, 1950

Article 32 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 482 – Quashing of FIR
– Whether main FIR against petitioner can be quashed in exercise of power
under Article 32. Held, no. Whether allegations in FIR make out any
offence or not so as to quash an FIR cannot be decided in exercise of
jurisdiction under Article 32. Despite liberty being granted to petitioner vide
interim order dt. 24.4.2020 passed by Supreme Court, he did not pursue
available legal remedies. He had an equally efficacious remedy available
before High Court under Section 482. There was no exceptional reason to
by-pass that procedure. But he chose to invoke jurisdiction of Supreme
Court by filing petition under Article 32. Therefore, Court declined to
entertain his petition for relief of quashing the main FIR. He is relegated to
avail remedies available under CrPC before competent court including High
Court. Protection granted to him under interim order dt. 24.4.2020 against
coercive steps to continue for three weeks, in view of Covid 19 outbreak.
(Para 49)
Ed.: Court held that although petition under Article 32 was maintainable it
could not be entertained.
Constitution of India, 1950

Article 32 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 482 – Quashing of FIR
lodged at Pydhonie Police Station (FIR 137 of 2020 dated 2.5.2020) –
Secretary of Raza Educational Welfare Society had filed said FIR stating
that petitioner made certain statements in a programme broadcasted on R
Bharat that people belonging to Muslim religion were responsible for the
spread of Covid-19. Held, FIR cannot be quashed as there is no basis for
exercise of jurisdiction under Article 32.  Petitioner is at liberty to pursue his
available legal remedies. (Para 52)

TRANSFER OF INVESTIGATION TO CBI

Transfer of investigation to CBI – Governing principles. Held, power to
transfer investigation to CBI is an “extraordinary power” to be used
“sparingly” and in rare and exceptional circumstances. Mere allegations
against police will not constitute sufficient basis for transfer of investigation.
Court must consider whether such transfer is imperative to retain public
confidence in the impartial working of the State agencies. Accused “does
not have a say in the matter of appointment of investigating agency.
Routine transfers would belie public confidence in the normal course of law.
State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights,
West Bengal [JT 2010 (2) SC 352], K V Rajendran's case [JT 2013 (12) SC
37] and Romila Thapar's case [JT 2018 (10) SC 442] referred. (Paras 36-
38, 44)
Transfer of investigation to CBI, sought on the ground of length of
investigation and nature of questions addressed to petitioner and Chief
Financial Officer [CFO] during the interrogation. Held, submission cannot
be accepted. Accused has no say in matter of investigation.  The line of
interrogation either of petitioner or CFO cannot be controlled or dictated by
the persons under investigation/interrogation. It is the investigating agency
which is entitled to determine the nature of questions and period of
questioning.
HELD
This Court [in P Chidambaram's case] held that so long as the investigation
does not violate any provision of law, the investigation agency is vested
with the discretion in directing the course of investigation, which includes
determining the nature of the questions and the manner of interrogation. In
adopting this view, this Court relied upon its earlier decisions in State of
Bihar v. P P Sharma [JT 1991 (2) SC 147] and Dukhishyam Benupani,
Asst. Director, Enforcement Directorate (FERA) v. Arun Kumar Bajoria [JT
1997 (9) SC 379] in which it was held that the investigating agency is
entitled to decide “the venue, the timings and the questions and the manner
of putting such questions” during the course of the investigation. (Para
39.1)
The contention of the petitioner that the length of the investigation or the
nature of the questions addressed to him and the CFO during the

interrogation must weigh in transferring the investigation cannot be
accepted. The investigating agency is entitled to determine the nature of
the questions and the period of questioning. The Petitioner was summoned
for investigation on one day. (Para 41)
Transfer of investigation to CBI, sought – Ground of conflict of interest –
Various FIRs registered against petitioner for telecast of a programme on
21.4.2020 in which he criticized the investigation by State Government in
Palghar incident – Whether his criticism of the State government would
cause a conflict of interest and hence matter should be transferred from
Maharashtra police to CBI. Held, no. Firstly, investigation of Palghar
incident is beyond the territorial jurisdiction of Mumbai police. Secondly, it
was on the consent and request of petitioner that FIR was transferred from
the Police Station in Nagpur City to Police Station in Mumbai.
HELD
Furthermore, the allegation of the Petitioner that there is a conflict of
interest arising out of the criticism by him of the alleged failure of the State
government to adequately probe the incident at Palghar is not valid. The
investigation of the Palghar incident is beyond the territorial jurisdiction of
the Mumbai police. (Para 41)
The petitioner requested for and consented to the transfer of the
investigation of the FIR from the Police Station Sadar, District Nagpur City
to the NM Joshi Marg Police Station in Mumbai. He did so because an
earlier FIR lodged by him at that police station was under investigation. The
petitioner now seeks to preempt an investigation by the Mumbai police. The
basis on which the petitioner seeks to achieve this is untenable. (Para 39)
Transfer of investigation from Mumbai police to CBI, sought – Ground of
allegations leveled by petitioner against Commissioner of Police, Mumbai in
course of a television programme. Relying upon ratio in CPDR, West
Bengal's case, held, that no transfer of investigation can be ordered merely
because a party has levelled some allegations against the local police.
Hence, the ground taken is not sufficient for transferring investigation to
CBI. Reliance was also placed on an interview given by complainant
[Cabinet Minister in the Maharashtra government] to a representative of R

Bharat targeting petitioner for airing his views. This also does not furnish a
valid basis in law for an inference that the investigation was tainted and
needs to be transferred to CBI. On the other hand investigating agency has
placed material on record to show attempt by petitioner to discredit the
investigation by taking recourse to social media and by utilizing the news
channels which he operates. To accept the tweets by petitioner and
interview by the complainant as a justification to displace a lawfully
constituted investigation agency of its jurisdiction and duty to investigate
would have far-reaching consequences for the federal structure. (Paras 42-
43)
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 199(6) – Criminal defamation –
Whether an FIR can be filed for the offence. Held, no. Neither can an FIR
be filed nor any direction can be issued under Section 156(3) CrPC
[Subramanian Swamy's case [JT 2016 (6) SC 41] referred]. It is only a
complaint which can be instituted by the aggrieved person. In this case,
counsel for State of Maharashtra has fairly stated that the main FIR under
investigation against petitioner does not and cannot cover any alleged act
of criminal defamation.
HELD
In view of the clear legal position, Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned Senior Counsel
appearing on behalf of the State of Maharashtra has fairly stated that the
FIR which is under investigation at the NM Joshi Marg Police Station in
Mumbai does not and cannot cover any alleged act of criminal defamation.
We will clarify this in our final directions. (Para 47)

(iv) In view of the law laid down by this Court in Subramanian Swamy, we
clarify that the above FIR does not cover the offence of criminal defamation
under Section 499 of the IPC which offence will not form the subject matter
of the investigation. Hence, it is not necessary to address the prayer for
dealing with the constitutional challenge to the validity of the said provision
in these proceedings; (Para 53(iv))
Arnab Ranjan Goswami
v.

Union of India & Ors.
Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, M R Shah JJ.