Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for T. T. Antony VS State Of Kerala...
T. T. Antony VS State Of Kerala - 2001 5 Supreme 131 : Second FIR on the same incident and same facts is not permissible under Cr.P.C. The registration of a second FIR in respect of the same incident, after the first FIR has already been registered and investigation is underway or a final report has been filed, is irregular and illegal. The scheme of the Cr.P.C. allows only one FIR for a cognizable offence, which is the earliest information recorded. Subsequent information, even if based on a Commission of Inquiry report, cannot be treated as a second FIR. Instead, the investigating agency must seek leave of the court to make further investigation and forward additional reports under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C.Checking relevance for Babubhai VS State of Gujarat...
Babubhai VS State of Gujarat - 2010 0 Supreme(SC) 782 : A second FIR is permissible if the version in the second FIR is different and the incidents or crimes are not the same, or if they relate to two different incidents/crimes. However, if both FIRs relate to the same incident, same occurrence, or are parts of the same transaction, the second FIR is liable to be quashed. The key test is whether the two FIRs pertain to the same cognizable offence or same occurrence giving rise to one or more cognizable offences. If not, the second FIR is permissible. This is also applicable when there are rival versions of the same episode, such as a counter claim by the accused, which allows for investigation on both FIRs.Checking relevance for AMISH DEVGAN VS UNION OF INDIA...
AMISH DEVGAN VS UNION OF INDIA - 2020 0 Supreme(SC) 697 : A second FIR is not permissible if it relates to the same cognizable offence, occurrence, or incident that gave rise to the first FIR. According to the Supreme Court in TT Antony v. State of Kerala, once an FIR is registered under Section 154 of the CrPC, any subsequent information about the same incident or cognizable offence must be treated as a statement under Section 162 CrPC and cannot form the basis of a second FIR. This is to prevent abuse of the statutory power of investigation and to avoid subjecting a citizen to multiple investigations for the same incident. However, a second FIR may be permissible if it is a counter-complaint or relates to a different incident or crime, or if the versions in the FIRs are fundamentally different and constitute separate transactions. The court emphasized that the test is whether the FIRs relate to the same incident or form part of the same transaction. If so, the second FIR is liable to be quashed. If not, investigation may proceed on both FIRs.Checking relevance for Shiv Shankar Singh VS State of Bihar...
Shiv Shankar Singh VS State of Bihar - 2011 8 Supreme 450 : Filing another FIR in respect of the same incident having a different version of events is permissible.Checking relevance for Surender Kaushik VS State of Uttar Pradesh...
Surender Kaushik VS State of Uttar Pradesh - 2013 0 Supreme(SC) 160 : A second FIR is permissible when there are rival versions in respect of the same incident, even if the incident is the same, as long as the allegations are distinct and separate. The concept of ''''sameness'''' has been given a restricted meaning and does not encompass filing of a counter FIR relating to the same or connected cognizable offence. When different versions of the same incident emerge, lodging of two FIRs is permissible. The second FIR may be registered on the basis of a direction issued by the Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the CrPC, especially when it pertains to a counter-complaint with different allegations and accused persons. The key consideration is whether the allegations in the second FIR are distinct and not merely an improvement on the first FIR.
