SYNOPSIS

INTRODUCTION: a

Registration of FIR is the very first step for any trial to proceed. It is the beginning of the a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a investigation in a case, collection of the evidences during investigation and formation of the final
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a decision is the sequence which results in filing of a report under Section 173 of the Code of
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a Criminal Procedure. There is a high chance that more than one piece of information is given to
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a the police officer in charge of a police station in respect of the same offence but by different
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a people. In this case, can the police register multiple FIRs based on the information that he
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a received from many victims? This is the main idea of this paper which truly explains all the
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a circumstances which make the police officer to take the information and register an FIR or
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a multiple FIRs. a a

OBJECTIVES: a

This paper aims to

a a a

1. Analyze the circumstances in which multiple FIRs can be registered a a a a a a a a a

2. Understand the true nature of same transaction and different transaction of an offence a a a a a a a a a a a a

3. Emphasize the key issues discussed in Anuj Choudary Vs. State of UP. a a a a a a a a a a a a

RESEARH QUESTION: a a

Whether multiple FIRs can be filed for the same offence?

a a a a a a a a a

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY: a a

The author followed the doctrinal method of research with exploratory and explanatory
a a a a a a a a a a a

a type of research. The author uses the primary and secondary sources for this study. The primary
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a sources consists of the official government websites like sci.gov.in, manupatra and SCC
a a a a a a a a a a a

a OnLineand books. The secondary sources include Articles, newspapers.

a a a a a a a a

LITERATURE REVIEW: a a

The author has analysed the key issues discussed by the supreme court in Anju Choudary
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a Vs. State of UP. There are certain circumstances in which multiple FIRs on the same offence
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a happened in the same transaction can be registered. Usually, Section 154 of CrPC does not allow
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a the second FIR on the same offence against the same accused but there are some situations which
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a make the police in charge of a police station can entertain the second FIR.Thus, the author
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a collected all the interpretations given by the Supreme court in Anju case, kari choudary and the
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a most prominent “Arnab Goswami” case on multiple FIRs and analyzed the circumstances.
a a a a a a a a a a a a

PAGE 1 OF 15
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY : a a a a a

This study played a vital role in understanding the concept and circumstances in which
a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a Multiple FIRs can be registered for the same offence which happened on same transaction and
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a different transactions.
a a

SCOPE AND LIMITATION:

a a a

This study is very limited to the interpretation given by the supreme court in Anju
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a Choudary vs state of Up and Kari choudary vs sita devi and Arnab goswami vs UoI on
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a registeration of multiple FIRs. a a a a

MODE OF CITATION: This study uses the Oxford style of citation.

a a a a a a a a a a

RESEARH DESIGN: a a

Chapter I: Introduction
a a

This chapter, basically talks about the concept of First Information Report by understanding its
a a a a a a a a a a a a a

definition and importance.

a a a a

Chapter II: Case Laws

a a a

1. Anju Choudary Vs State of UP

a a a a a a

2. Kari Choudary VS Sita Devi

a a a a a

3. Arnab Goswami Vs Union of India. a a a a a

Chapter III : Conclusion

a a a a

Chapter IV: Bibliography.

a a

PAGE 2 OF 15
ABSTRACT: A

The author of this study has clearly explained the reason and circumstances in which the
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a second FIR can be entertained through the Supreme Court interpretations in its Judgments. FIR is
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a a very vital document where the prosecution is based. It is the very step for the commencement
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a of any investigation of any offence. The very basic logic is that there cannot be two FIRs
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a registered on the same offence but there are circumstances in which multiple FIRs can be
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a registered if there is a different transaction of offence. In the case of Chirra Shivraj Vs. State of
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a AP (2010) 14 SCC 444, the court opined that “there cannot be a second FIR in respect of same
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a offence/event because whenever any further information is received by the investigating agency,
a a a a a a a a a a a

a it is always in furtherance of the First Information Report”. In the case of Ram Lal Narang Vs
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a State of Delhi Administration (1979) 2 SCC 322, the court was concerned with the registration of
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a a second FIR in relation to the same facts but constituting different offences and where ambit and
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a scope of the investigation was entirely different. If the information was not identical and the
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a subject matter was different. The Court observed that there was a statutory duty upon the Police
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a to register every information relating to cognizable offence and the second FIR was not hit by the
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a principle that it is impermissible to register a second FIR of the same offence. The Court held
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a that “there can be no second FIR” where the information concerns the same cognisable offence
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a alleged in the first FIR or the same occurrence or incident which gives rise to one or more
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a cognisable offences. This is due to the fact that the investigation covers within its ambit not just
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a the alleged cognisable offence, but also any other connected offences that may be found to have
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a been committed. This Court held that once an FIR postulated by the provisions of Section 154
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a has been recorded, any information received after the commencement of investigation cannot
a a a a a a a a a a a

a form the basis of a second FIR as doing so would fail to comport with the scheme of the CrPC.
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a This studyis very limited to the three cases such as 1. Anju Choudary Vs State of UP 2. Kari
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a Choudary VS Sita Devi 3. Arnab Goswami Vs Union of India.

a a a a a a a a a a

PAGE 3 OF 15
Introduction:

First Information Report is a vital document, which sets the mechanism of criminal law in
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a motion. The entire prosecution is built on this very material document. First Information Report,
a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a FIR “means the information, by whomsoever given, to the officer-in-charge of a police station in
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a relation to the commission of a cognizable offence and which is first in point of time and on the
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a strength of which the investigation into that offence is commenced”1. It is a settled law that FIR
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a is not substantive evidence but it can be used as corroborative evidence under S. 157 of Indian
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a Evidence Act, 1872, or to say contradict him under S. 145 of the IEA, 1872, that is to say, it is
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a not evidence of facts which it mentions but those facts should be corroborative with the witness
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a statements or contradicts if the informant is called as a witness at the time of trial. However, its
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a importance as conveying the earliest information regarding the occurrence cannot be doubted.
a a a a a a a a a a a

a Section 157 of Evidence Act is as follows: “In order to corroborate the testimony of a witness,
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a any former statement made by such witness relating to the same fact, at or about the time when
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a the fact took place, or before any authority legally competent to investigate the fact, may be
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a proved”2. a

The FIR should be lodged with the police at the earliest opportunity after the occurrence
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a of a cognizable offence. The main object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the report to the
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a police is to obtain early information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was
a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a committed. Delay in lodging the Fir quite often results in embellishment which is a creature of
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a afterthought and on account of delay, the report not only gets bereft of the advantage of
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a spontaneity, but danger creeps in of the introduction of colored version, exaggerated account or
a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a concocted story as a result of deliberation and consultation and for the reasons, it s essential that
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a delay in lodging FIR should satisfactorily explained.

a a a a a a a

The FIR can also be used for the cross examination of the informant and for contradicting
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a him. This is possibly by relying on Section 145, IEA which is as follows: “A witness may be
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a cross-examined as to previous statements made by him in writing or reduced in writing, and a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a relevant to matters in question, without such writing being shown to him, or being provided; but,
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

1
State of Bombay V. Rusy Mistry, 1960 Cri LJ 532
2
S. 157 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

PAGE 4 OF 15
a if it is intended to contradict him by the writing, his attention must, before the writing can be
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a proved, be called to those parts of it which are to be used for the purpose of contradicting him”.
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

In the case of Chirra Shivraj Vs. State of AP (2010) 14 SCC 444, the court opined that
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a “there cannot be a second FIR in respect of same offence/event because whenever any further
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a information is received by the investigating agency, it is always in furtherance of the First

a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a Information Report”3. a a

ANJU CHOWDARY VS STATE OF UP4 A A A A A

Bench : J. Swatanter Kumar and J. Madan B. Lokur

a a a a a a a a a

Facts: Parvez Parwaz, claiming himself to be a social activist, filed an application under Section
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a 156(3) in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gorakhpur against Mahant Aditya Nath
a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a Yogi, stating that he had been spreading hatred amongst the hindus and Muslims through an
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a organization named Hindu Yuva Vahini for a number of years and also causing fear among
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a muslims by harming and destroying the properties of them. Yogi has also conducted a meeting
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a stating to take vengeance on muslim people. On 26th January 2007, due to the highly sensitive
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a condition prevailing in the town of Gorakhpur and also curfew was also imposed on three police
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a station areas of that area and section 144 was in force in entire city. Despite this, the public was
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a provoked and directed to perform the criminal acts and also yogi provoked to destruct muslim
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a places and rob and set afire their houses. Finally, the police has registered an FIR under section
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a 302 of IPC apart from this incident, the shop of Hazarat was set on fire at about 6PM on
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a 27.01.2007 thus, he registered another FIR no.145 of 2007. The complaint application was filed
a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a under S. 156 nearly after the 10 months after the date of occurrence. It was heard by CJM but
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a rejected on 29th July 2008. CJM stated that crime no. 145 of 2007 had already been registered, as
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a noticed above, there was no propriety to register an FIR again. He also opined that there is no
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a need to conduct the fresh investigation on the same offence. Thus, Parvez filed a revision petition
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a before High Court. HC has set aside the order of the CJM and directed to pass a fresh order. It
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a also stated that the said FIR is related to only one offence, whereas the application under S.
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a 156(3) CrPC a number of incidents have been mentioned, which occurred in different places
a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a affecting different persons. Therefore, HC stated it cannot be said the FIR no. 145 of 2007 covers
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

3
Chirra Shivraj Vs. State of AP (2010) 14 SCC 444
4
(2013) 54 OCR (SC) 649

PAGE 5 OF 15
a all the incidents which are not same. The aggrieved party approached the Supreme Court through
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a SLP. a

The important question of law has raised before Supreme Court : Whether it is permissible to
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a register two different FIRs in law?

a a a a a

Section 154 of the Code states that “every information relating to the commission of a
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a cognizable offence, whether given orally or otherwise to the officer in-charge of a police station,
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a has to be reduced into writing by or under the direction of such officer and shall be signed by the
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a person giving such information. The substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a such officer in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government in this behalf”5.
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

“A copy of the information so recorded under Section 154(1) has to be given to the
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a informant free of cost. In the event of refusal to record such information, the complainant can
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a take recourse to the remedy available to him under Section 154(3). Thus, there is a duty on the
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a part of a police officer to register the information received by him of commission of a cognizable
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a offence. The two-fold obligation upon such officer is that (a) he should receive such information
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a and (b) record the same as prescribed”.

a a a a a a a

“The language of the section imposes such imperative obligation upon the officer. An
a a a a a a a a a a a a

a investigating officer, an officer-in-charge of a police station can be directed to conduct an

a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a investigation in the area under his jurisdiction by the order of a Magistrate under Section 156(3)
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a of the Code who is competent to take cognizance under Section 190. Upon such order, the
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a investigating officer shall conduct investigation in accordance with the provisions of Section 156
a a a a a a a a a a a a

a of the Code. The specified Magistrate, in terms of Section 190 of the Code, is entitled to take
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a cognizance upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence; upon a police
a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a report of such facts; upon information received from any person other than a police officer, or
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a upon his own knowledge, that such offence has been committed”.
a a a a a a a a a a

On plain reading of the section 154, 156 and 190 of CrPC, it cannot be derived that there
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a can be more than one FIR about an occurrence. But, the opening statement of Section 154
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a suggests that every information relating to commission of cognizable offence shall be reduced to
a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a writing. This implies that there has to be the first information report about an incident which
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

5
Section 154 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

PAGE 6 OF 15
a constitutes a cognizable offence. The basic purpose of registering an FIR is to set the machinery
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a of criminal investigation into motion, which culminates without filing of the police report in
a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a terms of section 173(2) of the code. It will, thus, be appropriate to follow the settled principle that
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a there cannot be two FIRs registered for the same offence. However, where the incident is
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a separate; offences are similar or different, or even where the subsequent crime is of such
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a magnitude that it does not fall within the ambit and scope of the FIR recorded first, then a second
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a FIR could be registered.

a a a a

The m0st imp0rtant aspect is t0 examine the inbuilt safeguards pr0vided by the legislature
a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a in the very language 0f Secti0n 154 0f the C0de. These safeguards can be safely deduced fr0m
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a the principle akin t0 d0uble je0pardy, rule 0f fair investigati0n and further t0 prevent abuse 0f
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a p0wer by the investigating auth0rity 0f the p0lice. Theref0re, sec0nd FIR f0r the same incident
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a cann0t be registered. 0f c0urse, the Investigating Agency has n0 determinative right. It is 0nly a
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a right t0 investigate in acc0rdance with the pr0visi0ns 0f the C0de. The filing 0f rep0rt up0n
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a c0mpleti0n 0f investigati0n, either f0r cancellati0n 0r alleging c0mmissi0n 0f an 0ffence, is a

a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a matter which 0nce filed bef0re the c0urt 0f c0mpetent jurisdicti0n attains a kind 0f finality as far
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a as p0lice is c0ncerned, may be in a given case, subject t0 the right 0f further investigati0n but
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a wherever the investigati0n has been c0mpleted and a pers0n is f0und t0 be prima facie guilty 0f
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a c0mmitting an 0ffence 0r 0therwise, reexaminati0n by the investigating agency 0n its 0wn

a a a a a a a a a a a a

a sh0uld n0t be permitted merely by registering an0ther FIR with regard t0 the same 0ffence. If
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a such pr0tecti0n is n0t given t0 a suspect, then p0ssibility 0f abuse 0f investigating p0wers by the
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a P0lice cann0t be ruled 0ut. It is with this intenti0n in mind that such interpretati0n sh0uld be
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a given t0 Secti0n 154 0f the C0de, as it w0uld n0t 0nly further the 0bject 0f law but even that 0f
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a just and fair investigati0n. M0re s0, in the backdr0p 0f the settled can0ns 0f criminal
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a jurisprudence, re-investigati0n 0r de n0v0 investigati0n is bey0nd the c0mpetence 0f n0t 0nly the
a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a investigating agency but even that 0f the learned Magistrate. a a a a a a a a a

It was also further stated that the registration of second FIR depends on the merits on each
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a case whether it is registering on the same offence or is based on distinct or different incidents
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a which have different facts and it also based on the scope of inquiry whether it is entirely different
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a or not.
a a

PAGE 7 OF 15
 In the case of Ram Lal Narang Vs State of Delhi Administration (1979) 2 SCC 322, the
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a court was concerned with the registration of a second FIR in relation to the same facts but
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a constituting different offences and where ambit and scope of the investigation was entirely
a a a a a a a a a a a a

a different. If the information was not identical and the subject matter was different. The Court
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a observed that there was a statutory duty upon the Police to register every information relating to
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a cognizable offence and the second FIR was not hit by the principle that it is impermissible to
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a register a second FIR of the same offence.

a a a a a a a

The court held that “Anyone acquainted with the day-to-day working of the criminal
a a a a a a a a a a a a

a courts will be alive to the practical necessity of the police possessing the power to make further
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a investigation and submit a supplemental report. It is in the interests of both the prosecution and
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a the defence that the police should have such power. It is easy to visualize a case where fresh
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a material may come to light which would implicate persons not previously accused or absolve
a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a persons already accused. When it comes to the notice of the investigating agency that a person
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a already accused of an offence has a good alibi, is it not the duty of that agency to investigate the
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a genuineness of the plea of alibi and submit a report to the Magistrate? After all, the investigating
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a agency has greater resources at its command than a private individual. Similarly, where the
a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a involvement of persons who are not already accused comes to the notice of the investigating
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a agency, the investigating agency cannot keep quiet and refuse to investigate the fresh
a a a a a a a a a a a a

a information. It is their duty to investigate and submit a report to the Magistrate upon the
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a involvement of the other persons. In either case, it is for the Magistrate to decide upon his future
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a course of action depending upon the stage at which the case is before him. If he has already taken
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a cognizance of the offence, but has not proceeded with the enquiry or trial, he may direct the issue
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a of process to persons freshly discovered to be involved and deal with all the accused in a single
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a enquiry or trial. If the case of which he has previously taken cognizance has already proceeded to
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a some extent, he may take fresh cognizance of the offence disclosed against the newly involved
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a accused and proceed with the case as a separate case. What action a Magistrate is to take in
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a accordance with the provisions of the CrPC in such situations is a matter best left to the
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a discretion of the Magistrate. a a a a

The criticism that a further investigation by the police would trench upon the proceeding
a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a before the court is really not of very great substance, since whatever the police may do, the final
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

PAGE 8 OF 15
a discretion in regard to further action is with the Magistrate. That the final word is with the
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a Magistrate is sufficient safeguard against any excessive use or abuse of the power of the police to
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a make further investigation. We should not, however, be understood to say that the police should
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a ignore the pendency of a proceeding before a court and investigate every fresh fact that comes to
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a light as if no cognizance had been taken by the Court of any offence. We think that in the
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a interests of the independence of the magistracy and the judiciary, in the interests of the purity of
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a the administration of criminal justice and in the interests of the comity of the various agencies
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a and institutions entrusted with different stages of such administration, it would ordinarily be
a a a a a a a a a a a a

a desirable that the police should inform the court and seek formal permission to make further
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a investigation when fresh facts come to light”. a a a a a a

It is to be understood that the further complaint on the same offence by the same accused,
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a subsequent to the registration of the FIR, is prohibited under the code, the reason being the
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a investigation has already started and further complaint against the same accused will amount to
a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a the improvements of the facts mentioned in the original complaint, hence it will be prohibited
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a under s. 162 of CrPC. a a a a a

It was also said in the present case that upon the registration of the FIR, beginning of
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a investigation in a case, collection of evidence during investigation and formation of the final
a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a opinion is the sequence which results in filing of a report under s.173 of the Code. The possibility
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a that more than one piece of information is given to the police officer in charge of a police station,
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a in respect of the same incident involving one or more than one cognizable offences, cannot be
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a ruled out. Other materials and information given to or received otherwise by the investigating
a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a officer would be statements covered under Section 162 of the Code. The Court in order to
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a examine the impact of one or more FIRs has to rationalise the facts and circumstances of each
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a case and then apply the test of sameness to find out whether both FIRs relate to the same incident
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a and to the same occurrence, are in regard to incidents which are two or more parts of the same
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a transaction or relate completely to two distinct occurrences. If the answer falls in the first
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a category, the second FIR may be liable to be quashed. However, in case the contrary is proved,
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a whether the version of the second FIR is different and they are in respect of two different
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a incidents/crimes, the second FIR is permissible. It was clearly discussed in the case of Babu a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a Babubhai Vs State of Gujarath (2010) 12 SCC 254, that the distinction between two FIRs
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

PAGE 9 OF 15
a relating to the same incident and two FIRs relating to different incident or occurrences of the
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a same incident etc. a a a

In the present case, the shop was set afire at 6PM and the meeting for provocation was
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a held at 8PM on the same day, thus it categorically comes under the provocation and conspiracy
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a or attempt by the persons premeditatedly committing the offences which they committed. As per
a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a the FIR, it was an offence committed at random by some unknown persons. The registration of
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a such FIR was neither intended to be nor was it in fact in relation to a matter of larger
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a investigation, or commission of offences. It was later found out the investigation of one has no
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a way dependent on the other and they are neither interlinked nor inter dependent. These two FIRs
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a are lodged d by different persons in relation to occurrences which are alleged to have occurred at
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a different points of time against different people and for different offences.
a a a a a a a a a a a

As the High Court has clearly mentioned that the second FIR can be registered for an
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a offence has committed not on the same transaction and the transaction depends on the facts and
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a circumstances of each case. It is very true that the law recognises common trial or a common FIR
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a being registered for one series of acts which are connected together as to form the same
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a transaction as contemplated under Section 220 of CrPC. a a a a a a a a

Kari Choudary V. Sita Devi 2002 SCC (Cri) 269 a a a a a a a a

Bench: K Thomas, S. Phukan. a a a a

Facts: Sugnia Devi was married to Ram Jatan Choudary, one of the four sons of Sita
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a Devi. Sugnia remained childless. Unfortunately, after 10 years of her marriage, she was killed on
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a the night of 27.06.1988. Sita Devi lodged an FIR alleging that few persons from outside had
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a sneaked into the bedroom of her daughter-in-law and murdered her by strangulation. Baed on
a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a that, the investigation has commenced. The Police found a very new version of the murder of
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a Sugnia which is different from that of the manner it was stated in FIR. The Police came to know
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a that the mother-in-law Sita with her other daughters-in-law hatched a conspiracy and murdered
a a a a a a a a a a a a

a Sugnia. Thus, police sent a report to the court on 30.11.1988 stating that the allegations in FIR
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a No. 135 were false and after confirmation the police registered another FIR as FIR No. 208/98.
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

PAGE 10 OF 15
 Now, Sita Devi filed a Protest Complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate alleging
a a a a a a a a a a a a

a that the Police report is wholly unsustainable and the real culprits were the one mentioned in
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a initial FIR. But the Chief Judicial Magistrate rejected the protest petition. Sita Devi filed a
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a revision in the High Court. The HC allowed the revision and directed the Chief Judicial
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a Magistrate to conduct an inquiry under Section 202 of CrPC. The Police proceeded with the
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a investigation and filed a chargesheet arraigning Sita Devi and her two daughter-in-laws and one
a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a son as culprits under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC. Meanwhile, Sita Devi moved to
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a High Court to quash the criminal proceedings lodged against her. A Single Judge of the High
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a Court of Patna quashed the criminal proceedings and the state approached Supreme Court
a a a a a a a a a a a a

a contenting that once the proceeding initiated under FIR No. 135 ended in final report the police
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a had no authority to register a second FIR. Of course the legal position is that there cannot be two
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a FIRs against the same accused in respect of the same case. But when there are rival versions in
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a respect of the same episode, they normally take the shape of two different FIRs and investigation
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a can be carried on under both of them by the same investigating agency. As there is a new
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a discovery and a complete contrast version of the finding to the initial FIR, the court can allow to
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a register the second FIR. The ultimate object of the investigation is to find the real culprits. Thus,
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a in this case the registration of the second FIR is allowed.

a a a a a a a a a a a

PAGE 11 OF 15
 ARNAB RANJAN GOSWAMI VS UNION OF INDIA & ORS A A A A A A A A

A LNIND 2020 SC 286 A A A

Bench: J. DY Chandrahud, J MR Shaha a a a a a a

Facts: Arnab is a Editor-in-chief of an English television news channel, Republic TV. On

a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a 16.04.2020, a broadcast took place on Republic TV. This led to the lodging of multiple FIRs in
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a different states against the petitioner. The genesis of these multiple FIRs and complaints is the
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a broadcasts on Republic TV in relation to an incident which took place in Gadchinchle village in

a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a Palghar district in Maharastra. Three persons including two sadhus were brutally killed by a mob,
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a in the presene of the police and forest guard personnel. The debate rised by the petitioner was to
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a question the tardy investigation, inconsistent versions of the authorities and administration and
a a a a a a a a a a a

a the state government’s silence on the Palghar incident given that the unfortunate incident
a a a a a a a a a a a a

a happened in Maharastra which was then under the rule of alliance government jointly formed by
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a Shiv Sena, the congress and the Nationalist Congress Party. The petitioner alleges that the
a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a members and followers of INC had lodged multiple FIRs.

a a a a a a a a a

The learned senior advocate Mr. Harish Salve argued that the statements made by he
a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a petitioner are a part of freedom of speech and expression of a journalist to air views which fall
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a within the protective ambit of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. He also submitted that the
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a petitioner is justified in invoking this jurisdiction since it is necessary for this court to lay down
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a safeguards which protect the democratic interest in fearless and independent journalism.
a a a a a a a a a a a

It was stated that India’s freedoms will rest safe as long as journalists can speak truth to
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a power without being chilled by a threat of reprisal. As it was stated in the Kari Choudary vs sita
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a devi, “the court has to examine the facts and circumstances giving rise to both the FIRs and the
A a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a test of sameness is to be applied to find out whether both the FIRs relate to the same incident in
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a respect of the same occurrence or are in regard to the incidents which are two or more parts of the
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a same transaction. If the answer is in the affirmative, the second FIR is liable to be quashed.
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a However, in case the contrary is proved, where the version in the second FIR is different and
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a they are in respect of the two different incidents/crimes, the second FIR is permissible. In case in
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a respect of the same incident the accused in the first FIR comes forward with a different version or
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a counterclaim, investigation on both the FIRs has to be conducted”. Finally in this case the court
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

PAGE 12 OF 15
a clarified that the filing of multiple of FIRs arising out of the same telecast of the show hosted by
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a the petitioner is an abuse of the process and impermissible.

a a a a a a a a a A

CONCLUSION: A

It is not possible to have a universal formula for determining the two or more acts
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a constitute the same transaction or different transaction. Such things are to be gathered from the
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a circumstances of the each case indicating the proximity of the time, unity or proximity of place,
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a continuity of action, commonality of purpose or design. If two incidents are of the different times
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a with involvement of different persons, then there is no commonality and with the different
a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a purpose it can be considered as different transaction. In that sense, different transactions cannot
a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a be registered under a common FIR. And the other interesting point to be remembered is that for
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a several offences to be part of the same transaction, the test which has to be applied is whether
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a they are so related to one another in point of purpose or of cause and effect, or as principle and
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a subsidiary, so as to resulting one continuous action. Thus, where there is a commonality of

a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a purpose or design, where there is a continuity of action, then all those persons involved can be
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a accused of the same or different offences committed in the course of the same transaction.
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

“There cannot be no second FIR and consequently there can be no new investigation on
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a receipt of every subsequent information in respect of the same cognizable offence or the same
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a transaction or incident giving rise to one or more cognizable offences. On receipt of information
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a about a cognizable offence or an incident giving rise to a cognizable offence or offences and on
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a entering the FIR in the station house diary, the officer in charge of a police station has to
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a investigate not merely the cognizable offence reported in the FIR but also other connected
a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a offences found to have been committed in the course of the same transaction or the same
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a occurrence and file one or more reports as provided in Section 173 of Code of Criminal
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a Procedure”. a

“The Court held that there can be no second FIR where the information concerns the same
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a cognisable offence alleged in the first FIR or the same occurrence or incident which gives rise to
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a one or more cognisable offences. This is due to the fact that the investigation covers within its
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a ambit not just the alleged cognisable offence, but also any other connected offences that may be
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a found to have been committed. This Court held that once an FIR postulated by the provisions of
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

PAGE 13 OF 15
a Section 154 has been recorded, any information received after the commencement of
a a a a a a a a a a a

a investigation cannot form the basis of a second FIR as doing so would fail to comport with the
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a scheme of the CrPC”.

a a a a

PAGE 14 OF 15
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

ARTICLES: A

1. Shilpha N. “Can a second FIR be filed for the same offence?”, CrLRR, July 31 2020
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a https://crlreview.in/second-fir-for-same-offence/ a

2. Gursimran Kaur Bakshi, “The scope of a second FIR as an open question in the Indian
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a Criminal System”, IPLEADERS, July 27 2021, https://blog.ipleaders.in/scope-second-

a a a a a a

fir-open-question-indian-criminal-system/#Possibility_of_registering_the_second_FIR a

3. Rashmi Bagri, “Second FIR on same incident is abuse of process of law, may be quashed
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

a without a awaiting a final a report a u/s a 173 a CrPC”, a LiveLaw, a 22 a Jan a 2022,
a https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/punjab-and-haryana-high-court-second-fir-abuse-
of-process-quash-without-173-crpc-report-190094.
4. Harjinder a Singh, a “Second a FIR a when a Permissible”,
a http://www.harjindersingh.in/home/second-fir-when-permissible a

5. “Second FIR lodged in Haridwar Dharma Sansad Case”, The Wire, 03 jan 2022,
a a a a a a a a a a a a

a https://thewire.in/communalism/second-fir-lodged-in-haridwar-dharma-sansad-case a

6. Yashawani Parashar, “Scope of Multiple a a a a a FIRs”, Jus Corpus Law Journal, a a a a

a https://www.juscorpus.com/scope-of-multiple-firs/ a

BOOKS: a

7. R.V Kelkar’s CrP by KN Chandrasekharan Pillai

a a a a a a

WEBSITES:

8. SCC OnLine a

9. ManuPatra
10. EBC Readera

11. Legitquest

PAGE 15 OF 15