The court emphasized the significance of the FIR in setting the criminal law into motion and highlighted that subsequent information does not lead to the registration of a second FIR.

1. This petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.2 of 2018 registered by the first respondent police for offences under Sections 120B, 193, 466, 467, 468, 471, 420 of IPC, as against the petitioners.

2. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitions are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. The allegations as against the petitioners are that they created forged documents such as Commissioner of Oath certificate & Notary certificate to grab the property of the defacto complainant. He further submitted that the defacto complaint lodged complaint in Crime No. 1 of 2012, with the same set of allegations and the allegations made in the present complaint are only subsequent information relating to the same incident. Therefore, the subsequent FIR is not maintainable and without any base, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.2 of 2018 for the offences under Sections 120B, 193, 466, 467, 468, 471, 420 of IPC, as against the petitioners. To support of his contention, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners relied upon the judgment reported in 2001 SCC (Cri) 1048 in the case of T.T.Antony Vs. State of Kerala and others as follows :-

"18. An information given under sub-section (1) of Section 154 of Cr.P.C. is commonly known as First Information Report (F.I.R.) though this term is not used in the Code. It is a very important document. And as its nick name suggests it is the earliest and the first information of a cognizable offence recorded by an officer in charge of a police station. It sets the criminal law into motion and marks the commencement of the investigation which ends up with the formation of opinion under Section 169 or 170 of Cr.P.C., as the case may be, and forwarding of a police report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. It is quite possible and it happens not infrequently that more in formations than one are given to a police officer in charge of a police station in respect of the same incident involving one or more than one cognizable offences. In such a case he need not enter every one of them in the station house diary and this is implied in Section 154 of Cr.P.C. Apart from a vague information by a phone call or a cryptic telegram, the information first entered in the station house diary, kept for this purpose, by a police officer in charge of a police station is the First Information Report - F.I.R. postulated by Section 154 of Cr.P.C. All other informations made orally or in writing after the commencement of the investigation into the cognizable offence disclosed from the facts mentioned in the First Information Report and entered in the station house diary by the police officer or such other cognizable offences as may come to his notice during the investigation, will be statements falling under Section 162 of Cr.P.C. No such information/statement can properly be treated as an F.I.R. and entered in the station house diary again, as it would in effect be a second FIR and the same cannot be in conformity with the scheme of the Cr.P.C. Take a case where an FIR mentions cognizable offence under Section 307 or 326 I.P.C. and the investigating agency learns during the investigation or receives a fresh information that the victim died, no fresh FIR under Section 302 I.P.C. need be registered which will be irregular; in such a case alteration of the provision of law in the first FIR is the proper course to adopt. Let us consider a different situation in which H having killed W, his wife, informs the police that she is killed by an unknown person or knowing that W is killed by his mother or sister, H owns up the responsibility and during investigation the truth is detected; it does not require filing of fresh FIR against H - the real offender-who can be arraigned in the report under Section 173(2) or 173(8) of Cr.P.C., as the case may be. It is of course permissible for the investigating officer t