Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Second FIR - Not Maintainable / Impermissible The general consensus across multiple sources is that a second FIR arising from the same set of facts or incident, which is already under investigation or has been registered, is not maintainable and is often liable to be quashed. Courts have emphasized that registering a second FIR on the same facts constitutes an abuse of process and violates legal principles. For example, ["Majhaulia Sugar Industries Pvt. Ltd. VS State of Bihar - Patna"] states, The 2nd FIR is impermissible as it will amount to improvement of the facts as alleged in the 1st FIR in respect of an offence committed in course of same transaction... continuation of the 2nd FIR is abuse of the process of law and hence liable to be quashed. Similarly, ["M. Mohammed Kunhi S/o Hassankunhi VS State of Kerala - Kerala"] notes, no such second information or statement can be treated as an FIR, as it would be a second F.I.R. and the same cannot be in conformity with the scheme of the Code.
Legal Principles on Multiple FIRs The law prohibits multiple FIRs for the same offence or incident, especially when the subsequent FIR relates to the same facts or occurrence. The Supreme Court and High Courts have clarified that if the second FIR pertains to the same incident or facts already covered in the first FIR, it is not sustainable. For instance, ["Ramez Faqiri VS State of NCT of Delhi - Delhi"] states, there can be no second FIR where the information concerns the same cognisable offence alleged in the first FIR or the same occurrence. Similar principles are reiterated in ["Mudavath Ramesh vs State of Telangana - Telangana"], which notes, if the subsequent offence alleged in the subsequent FIR is connected with the first FIR or is the consequence of the first FIR, such subsequent FIR is not maintainable.
Exceptions and Conditions for Second FIR Courts have acknowledged that if the second FIR pertains to a different incident or a separate offence, it may be permissible. As per ["Md Moinul Hoque Alias Moynul Hoque, S/o. Late Naher Uddin Ahmed vs State Of Assam, rep. By The PP, ASSAM - Gauhati"], if the answer is in the affirmative, the second FIR is liable to be quashed. However, in case, the contrary is proved, where the version in the second FIR is different and they are in respect of the two different Incidents/crimes, the second FIR is permissible. This aligns with the legal stance that second FIRs are permissible only when they relate to distinct, separate incidents.
FIR and Investigation Proceedings Several sources highlight that once an FIR leads to investigation and final reports, the police cannot register a second FIR for the same facts. ["KEVIN P BIJU (MINOR) vs SECRETARY UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION (UPSC) - 2025 Supreme(Online)(KER) 12259"] states, once the proceedings initiated under FIR No. 135 ended in a final report the police had no authority to register a second FIR and number it as FIR No. 208. Similarly, ["C.V.GEORGE vs STATE OF KERALA - Kerala"] emphasizes that the FIR and the final report are hereby quashed when proceedings are found to be duplicate or based on the same allegations.
Counter-Complaints and Second FIRs There are instances where a second FIR is filed as a counter-complaint or a rival version of the same incident. Courts have held that such FIRs may be permissible if they present a different factual scenario or separate incident, but not when they merely contest the initial FIR. For example, ["Md Moinul Hoque Alias Moynul Hoque, S/o. Late Naher Uddin Ahmed vs State Of Assam, rep. By The PP, ASSAM - Gauhati"] clarifies, the second FIR is liable to be quashed if it is a counter-complaint or presents a rival version of a set of facts, in reference to which an earlier FIR already stands registered.
Analysis and ConclusionThe consistent judicial view is that maintaining multiple FIRs for the same incident or facts is generally impermissible and can be challenged and quashed. Courts have underscored that such practice amounts to abuse of process and violates the scheme of the Criminal Procedure Code. Exceptions exist only when the second FIR pertains to a genuinely separate incident or different offence. Therefore, the maintenance of a second FIR without a distinct and separate factual basis is typically liable to be quashed, as supported by the cited judgments and legal principles ["Majhaulia Sugar Industries Pvt. Ltd. VS State of Bihar - Patna"] ["M. Mohammed Kunhi S/o Hassankunhi VS State of Kerala - Kerala"] ["Ramez Faqiri VS State of NCT of Delhi - Delhi"] ["Mudavath Ramesh vs State of Telangana - Telangana"].
In the realm of Indian criminal law, one common query arises frequently: 2nd FIR is maintained? This question touches on a critical aspect of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), particularly Section 154, which governs the registration of First Information Reports (FIRs). Generally, registering and maintaining a second FIR for the same incident is not permissible and may be seen as an abuse of process. However, exceptions exist based on judicial precedents. This post breaks down the legal principles, exceptions, and practical implications to help you understand this nuanced topic.
Disclaimer: This article provides general information based on established legal principles and is not a substitute for professional legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for case-specific guidance.
Under the CrPC, the foundational principle is that only one FIR can be registered for a particular incident. Subsequent information related to the same event must be incorporated into the original FIR or investigation, rather than spawning a new one. Courts have consistently held that a second FIR based on the same facts or incident violates the CrPC's scheme and can be quashed under Section 482. Anju Chaudhary VS State of U. P. - 2012 0 Supreme(SC) 902State of Rajasthan VS Surendra Singh Rathore - 2025 3 Supreme 471Surender Kaushik VS State of Uttar Pradesh - 2013 0 Supreme(SC) 160
Key points include:- A second FIR for the same incident is impermissible unless exceptions apply. Anju Chaudhary VS State of U. P. - 2012 0 Supreme(SC) 902State of Rajasthan VS Surendra Singh Rathore - 2025 3 Supreme 471Surender Kaushik VS State of Uttar Pradesh - 2013 0 Supreme(SC) 160- Once a final report under Section 173 CrPC is filed, a subsequent FIR for the same incident is generally invalid. Anju Chaudhary VS State of U. P. - 2012 0 Supreme(SC) 902Ramesh Kumaran VS State, through the Inspector of Police - 2025 3 Supreme 689T. T. Antony VS State Of Kerala - 2001 5 Supreme 131- Such actions are viewed as an abuse of process, liable to be quashed by higher courts. Anju Chaudhary VS State of U. P. - 2012 0 Supreme(SC) 902Ramesh Kumaran VS State, through the Inspector of Police - 2025 3 Supreme 689T. T. Antony VS State Of Kerala - 2001 5 Supreme 131MANOJ KUMAR VS STATE OF UTTARAKHAND - 2019 4 Supreme 124
For instance, in one case, the court noted that two complaints with the same set of allegations cannot be maintained, leading to the quashing of FIR No.35 of 2025 registered with identical allegations shortly after the first FIR. Mohammed Abdul Naser vs The State of Telangana - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 70863
While the rule is strict, courts recognize limited exceptions where a second FIR may be maintained:- Different Incident or Cause of Action: If the second FIR relates to a separate event or distinct facts. Anju Chaudhary VS State of U. P. - 2012 0 Supreme(SC) 902T. T. Antony VS State Of Kerala - 2001 5 Supreme 131- Larger Conspiracy or Additional Facts: When it uncovers a broader conspiracy or new facts not covered in the first FIR. Anju Chaudhary VS State of U. P. - 2012 0 Supreme(SC) 902T. T. Antony VS State Of Kerala - 2001 5 Supreme 131Ramesh Kumaran VS State, through the Inspector of Police - 2025 3 Supreme 689- Counter FIR: A counter-case by the accused against the complainant may be allowed, even for the same incident. UT OF J&K vs Mohammad Ramzan Bhat - 2024 Supreme(J&K) 343
The Supreme Court has clarified: there can be no second FIR where the information concerns the same cognisable offence alleged in the first FIR or the same occurrence or incident. Rahul vs State Of Madhya Pradesh - 2024 Supreme(MP) 733 However, if misappropriation or offenses are entirely different and not connected, a separate FIR is valid, as the consequence test does not apply. VRUJESHKUMAR HEMAJI UMAT VS STATE OF GUJARAT - 2018 Supreme(Guj) 269
In another ruling, the court distinguished that a second FIR is prohibited for the same incident, but a counter FIR is permissible under law, setting aside a magistrate's direction for a fresh FIR after cognizance was already taken. UT OF J&K vs Mohammad Ramzan Bhat - 2024 Supreme(J&K) 343
Indian courts, especially the Supreme Court, have provided clear guidance through landmark cases:
Additionally, in a case involving speech under IPC Section 153A, the court noted the second FIR's false text and prima facie non-maintainability, granting anticipatory bail while following precedents like (2001) 6 SCC 181. Arif Masood VS State of M. P. - 2020 Supreme(MP) 1085
These precedents underscore that courts scrutinize the overlap in facts, timing, and scope before allowing maintenance.
If a second FIR is filed improperly:1. Challenge via Petition: File under Section 482 CrPC in High Court to quash it.2. Evidence of Overlap: Demonstrate same facts, incident, or post-final report filing.3. Court Relief: Courts often quash to prevent harassment, as seen in cases where FIRs were deemed devoid of merit. Mohammed Abdul Naser vs The State of Telangana - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 70863
In one instance, continuation of prosecution in multiple courts for counterfeit currency offenses was quashed as double jeopardy. Rahul vs State Of Madhya Pradesh - 2024 Supreme(MP) 733 Similarly, delayed or elaborate FIRs lodged months later were scrutinized for credibility. State of Maharashtra VS Prashant Baburao Gawand - 2019 Supreme(Bom) 1693
However, if new evidence emerges post-closure, like disproportionate assets distinct from the first FIR, a second one may stand. VRUJESHKUMAR HEMAJI UMAT VS STATE OF GUJARAT - 2018 Supreme(Guj) 269
These examples illustrate how courts apply the principles contextually.
In summary, a second FIR is generally not maintainable for the same incident under CrPC, as it contravenes legal schemes and invites quashing. Exceptions for distinct incidents, counter-cases, or larger conspiracies provide flexibility, but require careful judicial scrutiny. Anju Chaudhary VS State of U. P. - 2012 0 Supreme(SC) 902State of Rajasthan VS Surendra Singh Rathore - 2025 3 Supreme 471
Key Takeaways:- Stick to one FIR per incident; supplement the original.- Challenge invalid second FIRs promptly to avoid prolonged proceedings.- Exceptions are narrow—prove distinct facts or new discoveries.
Stay informed on evolving jurisprudence, but always seek tailored advice from legal experts. Understanding these rules empowers you in navigating criminal complaints effectively.
References:1. Anju Chaudhary VS State of U. P. - 2012 0 Supreme(SC) 902: Core prohibition and exceptions.2. State of Rajasthan VS Surendra Singh Rathore - 2025 3 Supreme 471: Scope of second FIRs.3. Ramesh Kumaran VS State, through the Inspector of Police - 2025 3 Supreme 689: Quashing post-final report.4. T. T. Antony VS State Of Kerala - 2001 5 Supreme 131: Permissible for larger conspiracies.5. Mohammed Abdul Naser vs The State of Telangana - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 70863: Same allegations quashed.6. Others as cited inline.
#SecondFIR #CrPC #IndianLaw
illegal act therefore 2nd FIR should not have been lodged and is fit to be quashed. ... The 2nd FIR is impermissible as it will amount to improvement of the facts as alleged in the 1st FIR in respect of an offence committed in course of same transaction. The continuation of the 2nd FIR is abuse of the process of law and hence liable to be quashed. ... The 2nd FIR is not maintainable and is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution....
Gracy Jacob alienated the property in question in favour of the 2nd respondent. ... The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent would submit that only if the first complaint has been dismissed on merits, there can be a bar for the 2nd complaint and the proceedings thereon would become illegal. ... The allegation of the 2nd respondent in his complaint are the fraudulent inducement by the 4th accused in the matter of execution of sale deed dated 30.10.2009 and receipt of Rs. 22 lakh as sale consideration from the ....
As seen from the allegations they are of serious nature which does require investigation but for the said reason two complaints with the same set of allegations cannot be maintained. ... Subsequent to the said FIR, on 25.01.2025 with the same set of allegations another FIR vide FIR No.35 of 2025 got to be registered by the victim on the file of P.S.Bandlaguda. 7. ... , devoid of merits by concerned police and consequentially quash the FIR and all subsequent proceedings in FIR No.35 of....
Accordingly, the FIR No.261/2021 registered at Police Station Greater Kailash and the consequential charge sheet dated 2nd December, 2021 and the proceedings pursuant thereto are hereby quashed. 33. ... The present petition has been filed seeking quashing of: (i) FIR No.261/2021 dated 10th September, 2021, under Sections 354/509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) registered at Police Station Greater Kailash; (ii) Charge sheet dated 2nd December, 2021 and ... It is pertinent to note that the FIR was re....
After conducting investigation, the SIT submitted closure report before the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (2nd Additional Munsiff), Srinagar, on 15.03.2021. ... So far as FIR No.88/1996 is concerned, in the said FIR the version of occurrence given by the police is subject matter of investigation whereas the version of occurrence given by the protest petitioner is not subject matter of said FIR. ... 30) A copy of this order be sent to the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (2nd Additional Mun....
Judge, Bhuj) has framed the charges against the petitioners on 24/08/2022, copies of the charges have also been filed on record, wherein charges under Section 489-A, 489-B, 489-C, 489-D and 120-B of IPC have been framed against the petitioners, whereas in connection with the present case at Ratlam, the 2 ... The Court held that “there can be no second FIR” where the 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. ... No such i....
Hence, the FIR and the final report are hereby quashed. Crl.M.C. is allowed accordingly. ... ANNEXURE A9(C) TRUE COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT MAINTAINED BY 1ST PETITIONER FOR THE FIRM MARIAM RUBBERS FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2008-2009. ... ANNEXURE A10(A) TRUE COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT MAINTAINED BY 1ST PETITIONER FOR THE FIRM VARKEY RUBBERS FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2008-2009. ... ANNEXURE A10(B) TRUE COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT #....
Hence, the FIR and the final report are hereby quashed. Crl.M.C. is allowed accordingly. ... ANNEXURE A9(D) TRUE COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT MAINTAINED BY 1ST PETITIONER FOR THE FIRM MARIAM RUBBERS FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2009-2010. ... ANNEXURE A9(A) TRUE COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT MAINTAINED BY 1ST PETITIONER FOR THE FIRM MARIAM RUBBERS FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2006-2007. ... ANNEXURE A9(E) TRUE COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT #HL_START....
The petitioner has been arrayed as the 2nd accused in the FIR. ... In the Course of investigation, the respondent police resorted to freezing of the bank accounts of the petitioner maintained before the 2nd respondent bank. ... Accordingly, the account maintained by the petitioner in the 2nd respondent bank in each of the petition is hereby defreezed and the 1st respondent police is directed ... before the 2nd respondent bank in each of the petition.....
tooth by any person when the case is urgent and no registered dentist is available, so however that the operation is performed without the use of any general or local anaesthetic; (c) the performance of dental work or radiographic work in any hospital or dispensary maintained ... Therefore, the FIR in question in the instant case cannot be termed as a second FIR, in as much as it relates to events that have nexus with the actions of the petitioner, subsequent to the registration of the first FIR. ... second FIR....
It is averred that second FIR does not mention about the previous FIR.
The FIR was lodged on 20-8-2000 about 8/9 months later. In the FIR, prosecutrix narrates her first sexual encounter. When you compare this to the FIR, the FIR is so elaborate.
It is contended that place of incident is not proved by the prosecution, as no map is produced showing maize area of the field. It is further contended that FIR at Exh. 19 is second FIR. No photograph is taken to show that crop of maize was spread over as to what area of land, in view of the fact that dead body was not found near the neelgiri tree, but it was found at the courtyard of complainant's house.
Thus, when misappropriation coming to light is entirely different and not connected with earlier one, the "consequence test" is not attracted. Therefore, lodging of a separate FIR for it is not viewed as second FIR.
All these aspects are covered in the first FIR hence the second FIR cannot be maintained. It will be seen that the allegations in the second FIR and the allegations in the first FIR are substantially the same that once the tenders were accepted from amongst the highest bidders and then those bidders were allowed to take back their deposits in contravention of the Rules of tender, and thereafter without a fresh tender/notice bidder of much less amount were selected depriving the bidders with substantially higher amount.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
