A second FIR is maintainable if it involves distinct allegations not covered in a prior FIR, even if both arise from the same factual circumstance.

JUDGMENT :

1. Sri Anil K. Tripathi, Advocate has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of the petitioner, which is taken on record. After arguing at some length he states that he would like the previous counsel Sri Manish Vaish to argue the matter and thus the ‘baton’ of argument has been passed on to Sri Manish Vaish.

2. We fail to understand this tactic on the part of lawyers of changing counsels mid way.

3. Be that as it may, we have heard Sri Manish Vaish, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. appearing for the State.

4. Under challenge is the First Information Report (hereinafter referred to as “F.I.R.”) dated 01.03.2026 bearing First Information Report No. 189/2026, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “I.P.C.”), Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Gonda.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the year 2020, the Executive Officer of the Municipal Corporation, Gonda had lodged a F.I.R. dated 07.12.2020 bearing F.I.R. No. 955/2020, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 409 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Nagar against Vipin Prakash Srivastava (Clerk of Municipal Corporation). After concluding the investigation, a charge-sheet had been filed against accused persons, namely, Vipin Prakash Srivastava and Ankit Srivastava (a bank employee). In the said F.I.R., irregularities regarding misappropriation of Provident Fund during the year 2017 were alleged.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that respondent No. 4 moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate seeking registration of the F.I.R. against the petitioner, which was rejected vide order dated 25.06.2024 on the basis of preliminary inquiry report. Being aggrieved by the order dated 25.06.2024, respondent No. 4 preferred a Criminal Revision No. 358/2024::Ayesha Begum Vs. Mohammad Mushfik @ Sanju . The revisional court admitted the revision and consequently quashed the order dated 25.06.2024 passed by learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and also directed the trial court to pass a fresh order after hearing both the parties. On the date fixed for hearing applicant/respondent No.4 did not appear before the learned Magistrate, therefore, application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was dismissed for want of prosecution on 29.07.2025. Subsequently, applicant/respondent No. 4 filed another application under Section 173(4) of the BNSS, 2023 (Corresponding Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.), resulting learned Magistrate vide order dated 04.02.2026 allowed the application and directed police for registration of the F.I.R. against the petitioner.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that grievances of respondent No.4 had already been covered by previous F.I.R. lodged on 07.12.2020. He further submits that at the relevant time, the petitioner was posted as a Clerk and he had performed his duties properly, so that Provident Fund of the employees could be deposited in their Provident Fund Account and if some amount have been withdrawn in an authorized manner, then the matter rests between account holder and bank, for which the petitioner has no concern.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the first inquiry report, no allegation was found against the petitioner; therefore, subsequent order dated 04.02.2026 passed by the learned Magistrate, without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, is illegal. Consequently, the subsequent F.I.R. is liable to be quashed, and the police be directed not to arrest the petitioner or take any coercive measures against him.

9. The other ground tak