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…!
References:- ["2025 0 Supreme(Guj) 1773"]- ["2024 0 Supreme(Cal) 276"]- ["2025 0 Supreme(Telangana) 486"]- ["2025 0 Supreme(All) 3716"]- ["2023 0 Supreme(Jhk) 1051"]
In the realm of Indian criminal law, one common query arises frequently: Is a for the same incident permissible? This question, often phrased as for same incident permissible, touches on critical principles under the , particularly . Understanding this can prevent misuse of legal processes and protect individuals from harassment.
This blog post delves into the legal position, drawing from landmark judgments and statutory interpretations. Note that while we provide general insights based on established precedents, this is not legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for case-specific guidance.
The foundational principle is clear: a for the same incident and facts is generally not permissible2006 1 Supreme 195 2013 0 Supreme(SC) 160. This stems from the scheme of the CrPC, designed to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and harassment. As emphasized in 2006 1 Supreme 195, only the earliest information satisfies Cr.P.C., and subsequent information regarding the same incident should be covered under statements recorded during investigation () or further reports ().
Courts have consistently held that registering multiple FIRs for identical occurrences leads to abuse of process. For instance, in 2025 0 Supreme(Telangana) 476, it was stated, Therefore, for the same incident cannot be registered. Similarly, 2005 0 Supreme(Raj) 1781 reinforces: There could be no second or third FIR in respect of the same and with regard to the same incident or occurrence.
This rule aligns with the landmark case, referenced across judgments like 2006 1 Supreme 195, prohibiting successive FIRs to ensure a single, comprehensive investigation.
The crux lies in the —examining whether both FIRs relate to the same incident, occurrence, facts, time, place, and accused2006 1 Supreme 195 2013 0 Supreme(SC) 160 2010 0 Supreme(SC) 782. If yes, the is liable to be quashed.
Judgments like 2010 0 Supreme(SC) 782 stress: the importance of examining facts and circumstances to determine whether the FIRs are related to the same incident or different incidents.
Exceptions exist where a may be allowed, preventing a blanket prohibition:
In 2023 0 Supreme(Ker) 870, the court clarified: In , the Apex court held that the prohibition for a does not cover a , allegations of which are different although relating to the same incident.
Another example from 2023 0 Supreme(AP) 1371: A second complaint was maintainable as it offered a different version with additional allegations, allowing investigation on merits.
High Courts wield under to quash abusive second FIRs. If the transgresses statutory limits or relates to the same incident, it may be quashed2006 1 Supreme 195 2013 0 Supreme(SC) 160 2010 0 Supreme(SC) 782.
Courts apply guidelines from to prevent process abuse, as seen in cases quashing FIRs for identical claims 2013 0 Supreme(AP) 550.
Recent precedents reinforce these principles:
In 2013 0 Supreme(AP) 550, For the same event and offences against the same people, there cannot be a . Filing of multiple complaints, relatable to the same transaction, must be controlled as it causes tremendous harassment.
These cases highlight judicial scrutiny to balance investigation rights with preventing oppression.
Authorities should ensure single FIRs for same incidents to uphold justice.
| Scenario | Permissible? ||----------|--------------|| Same facts, incident, accused | No 2006 1 Supreme 195 2013 0 Supreme(SC) 160 || Different incident/cause | Yes 2010 0 Supreme(SC) 782 || Different version/new facts | Possibly 2023 0 Supreme(Ker) 870 || Ongoing investigation | No 2006 0 Supreme(Pat) 748 |
Generally, a for the same incident is not permissible under Indian law to curb harassment and ensure efficient probes. However, exceptions for distinct facts or versions allow flexibility, subject to the sameness test. Courts vigilantly quash improper FIRs, as seen in precedents like 2006 1 Supreme 195, 2013 0 Supreme(SC) 160, and others.
Stay informed, but for personalized scenarios—seek professional legal counsel. This evolving area underscores CrPC's balance between justice and process integrity.
References (select judgments):1. 2006 1 Supreme 195 - T.T. Antony principles.2. 2013 0 Supreme(SC) 160 - .3. 2010 0 Supreme(SC) 782 - Fact examination.4. 2025 0 Supreme(Telangana) 476 - Prohibition on multiples.5. 2023 0 Supreme(Ker) 870 - Different allegations exception.
#SecondFIR, #CriminalLawIndia, #LegalInsights
Despite this, after nearly two years of the incident, the same complainant filed a second complaint for the very same incident by way of a private complaint before the Magistrate, which is not maintainable in law. ... There is a settled principle of law that a Magistrate does not take cognizance of an “offence” twice over, and normally, a second complaint for the same incident is not maintainable. ... In the present case, however, the private complaint relates to the same incident and ....
Therefore, second FIR for the same incident cannot be registered. Such registration would not be considered as valid in the eye of law. 40. ... Therefore, second FIR for the same incident cannot be registered. Of course, the investigating agency has no determinative right. It is only a right to investigate in accordance with the provisions of the Code. ... Counsel for petitioner submitted that the second FIR was registered on the self-same incident after 16 months from the date of occu....
In the private complaint, the second respondent has stated that the alleged incident took place on 24.12.2021. However, in the FIR, it is mentioned that the alleged incident took place on 23.12.2021 at around 9:00 hours. ... Be that as it may, the FIR was registered on 11.08.2022, on the basis of the private complaint filed by the second respondent on 09.08.2022, that too of an incident that took place on 23.12.2021. ... In the said suit, the second respondent has candidly admitted th....
Therefore, second FIR for the same incident cannot be registered. Of course, the Investigating Agency has no determinative right. It is only a right to investigate in accordance with the provisions of the Code. ... 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. ... improvise the case, would t....
FIR is in respect of two different incident/crime, the second FIR is permissible. ... The Apex Court in case of Babubhai (supra) observed that if both the FIRs relating to same incident in respect of same occurrence or in regard to the incident which are two or more part of transaction then second FIR should be quashed but in the same judgment Apex Court further observed that if second ... Further, Apex Court also held that if investigation related to incident bring t....
Therefore, second FIR for the same incident cannot be registered. Of course, the Investigating Agency has no determinative right. It is only a right to investigate in accordance with the provisions of the Code. ... 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. ... improvise the case, would th....
, the second FIR will be impermissible in law. ... It has been submitted that the impugned F.I.R. is the second F.I.R. in relation to the same incident as Shri Dinesh Kumar Pandey, Inspector Incharge of Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Bahraich, had earlier lodged F.I.R. ... Thus there can be no second FIR and consequently there can be no fresh investigation on receipt of every subsequent information in respect of the same cognizable offence or the same occurrence or incident giving rise to one or....
Antony case [(2001) 6 SCC 181: 2001 SCC (Cri) 1048] is to be accepted as holding that a second complaint in regard to the same incident filed as a counter-complaint is prohibited under the Code then, in our opinion, such conclusion would lead to serious consequences. ... Keeping in view the aforesaid principles of law in the decisions supra, when this Court examined the facts of the case on hand, it finds that the second complaint filed by the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant against the petitioners/A.1 to A.9 though related to the sam....
be registered for the same incident when the first complaint pending investigation and the second complaint is not a counter complaint but against the same person and for same incident, 41. ... The second complaint given about 8 months after the incident before the police who had already registered the case and investigating taken up as new case. ... The act of the respondent police registering the second FIR given by the ruling party men after 8 months of the incident#HL_END....
In Upkar Singh (2004) 13 SCC 292, the Apex court held that the prohibition for a second FIR does not cover a second FIR, allegations of which are different although relating to the same incident. ... No. 2339 of 2015 would only be groundless for the reason that it is based on a second FIR regarding the same incident is untenable. 17. ... State of Kerala, (2018) 4 SCC 579 held that it is for the court to decide whether the allegations in two FIRs regarding the same incident, but laid by....
For the same event and offences against the same people, there cannot be a second FIR. Filing of multiple complaints, relatable to the same transaction, must be controlled as it causes tremendous harassment and prejudice. (Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. The Central Bureau of Investigation (2013 Cri.L.J. 2313)).
Added further according to the learned Senior Counsel, following the first incident, on the same day at about 12.30 p.m., the second incident, viz., the occurrence has taken place. The prosecution did not file the First Information Report, 161 Statement or the Medical Report, in respect of accused Nos. On the strength of the complaint given by third accused, a case came to be registered by the very same respondent-police in Cr.No. 215 of 2004 under Sections 323 and 324 IPC. On the date of occurrence viz., 27.05.2004, at about 9.00 a.m., when the first accused was ploughing ....
(f) The subsequent proceeding must be a fresh proceeding where he is. for the second time, sought to be prosecuted and punished for the same offence.
There could be no second or third FIR in respect of the same cognizable offence and with regard to the same incident or occurrence. Sec. 154 Cr.P.C. deals with the first information report which has to be with regard to the cognizable offence. Contention of Mr. A.K. Gupta based upon number of FIRs and there being conflicting evidence with regard to time and place where FIR (Ex.P.1) was lodged and manipulation in date from `28.8.1995 to `29.8.1995, is also devoid of any merit. Once FIR with regard to a cognizable offence is recorded by the police, all further reports that ma....
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
