Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!

Scanned Judgements…!

Checking relevance for AMISH DEVGAN VS UNION OF INDIA...

2020 0 Supreme(SC) 697 : The legal documents confirm that a second FIR is permissible in certain circumstances. According to the judgment in T.T. Antony, while there cannot be two FIRs against the same accused in respect of the same case, if there are rival versions of the same incident, they may take the form of two different FIRs, and investigation can proceed under both. The key test is whether the FIRs relate to the same incident or are parts of the same transaction. If the answer is affirmative, the second FIR may be quashed. However, if the second FIR presents a different version or constitutes a counter-claim, investigation may proceed. The documents also clarify that subsequent FIRs, when not the first information report, are treated as statements under Section 162 of the CrPC, not as new FIRs, and can be proceeded with if they pertain to different incidents or are part of a counter-complaint. This principle was reiterated in Babubhai vs. State of Gujarat and Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash, affirming that a second complaint as a counter-complaint is not prohibited by the CrPC.Checking relevance for State of Rajasthan VS Surendra Singh Rathore...

2025 3 Supreme 471 : A second FIR is permissible under certain circumstances, including when it is a counter-complaint or presents a rival version of facts related to an incident already covered by a prior FIR; when the ambit of the two FIRs is different despite arising from the same circumstances; when investigation reveals a larger conspiracy beyond the scope of the first FIR; when new facts or circumstances come to light during investigation; when the incident is separate; or when the offences are similar or different. The Supreme Court has held that while there cannot be two FIRs for the same offence, a second FIR may be registered if it pertains to a different incident, a broader scope of corruption, or new discoveries during investigation, especially when quashing it would hinder a larger investigation into systemic corruption, which would be against public interest.Checking relevance for 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 findings of a Commission of Inquiry, cannot be treated as a second FIR. Instead, the investigating agency must seek leave of the court to make further investigation and file additional reports under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C.Checking relevance for 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, as the law does not prohibit registration and investigation of two FIRs in respect of the same incident when the versions of events differ. The test of sameness must be applied, and if the versions are different, a second FIR is allowed.Checking relevance for Babubhai VS State of Gujarat...

2010 0 Supreme(SC) 782 : The second FIR is permissible if the version in the second FIR is different and the incidents are in respect of two different incidents/crimes, or if the second FIR relates to a counter claim with a different version of the same episode. 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, or whether they involve different versions or distinct crimes.

• Permissibility of Quashing FIR/Charges against 2nd FIR - The High Court's exercise of quashing FIRs or charges is permissible only after investigation is complete, evidence is collected, and charges are framed or during trial. It is not allowed during the investigation stage. Merely mentioning Section 307 IPC in the FIR or charge sheet does not automatically justify quashing; courts may examine whether the inclusion of Section 307 is substantiated by evidence. ["2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 49785"], ["INDKER000001518"]

• Quashing FIR against Some Accused on Grounds of Settlement - Courts have held that it is permissible to quash FIRs or final reports against some accused persons based on settlement, depending on the facts and circumstances. The Supreme Court in Lovely Salhotra emphasized that such quashing is lawful when the dispute is amicably settled and the de facto complainant does not wish to proceed. The principle applies even if some accused are not part of the settlement. This approach is supported by multiple judgments, including Sajeev v. State and Sreejith v., which affirm that partial quashing is permissible under Section 482 Cr.P.C. ["2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 4922"], ["2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 13126"], ["2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 14145"], ["2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 12816"], ["2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 28905"], ["2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 29233"], ["2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 31073"]

• Specific to 2nd FIR/Charge Sheet - There is no explicit bar against quashing a second FIR or subsequent charges if the initial investigation and charges are completed, and the case is at a stage where evidence is available. The courts have clarified that such exercise is permissible post-investigation and during trial, not during preliminary investigation. For the 2nd FIR, if the dispute is settled and the legal conditions are met, quashing can be considered, provided the case is at an appropriate stage. ["2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 49785"], ["INDKER000001518"]

Analysis and Conclusion:Quashing a second FIR (2nd FIR) is permissible under Indian law, particularly after investigation and when the dispute is settled, provided the case has reached a stage where evidence is available, and the court finds justice would be served by quashing. The courts emphasize that such exercise should not be during the investigation phase but after sufficient evidence is collected. Settlement between parties and the absence of involvement of the second accused in the alleged offence are significant factors supporting quashing. Overall, the legal position supports the permissibility of quashing the 2nd FIR under appropriate circumstances, especially when based on amicable settlement and the case's procedural stage.