Under the Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 154 speaks about those details about a cognizable offence either in oral or written form. A First Information Report is that document prepared by the concerned police personnel when on getting information about a cognizable offence that was committed. So, can a second FIR related to that crime be lodged?
In Prem Chand Singh versus The State of Uttar Pradesh And Another, the Supreme Court opined:
“It is, therefore, apparent that the subject matter of both the FIRs is the same general power of attorney dated 02.05.1985 and the sales made by the appellant in pursuance of the same, If the substratum of the two FIRs are common , the mere addition of Sections 467 , 468 and 471 in the subsequent FIR cannot be considered as different ingredients to justify the latter FIR as being based on different materials , allegations and grounds.”
The case: Surender Kaushik And Others versus State of Uttar Pradesh And Others – wherein the Apex Court noted:
“….it is quite luminous that the lodgment of two FIRs is not permissible in respect of one and the same incident. The concept of sameness has been given a restricted meaning. It does not encompass filing of a counter FIR relating to the same or connected cognizable offence. What is prohibited is any further complaint by the same complainant and others against the same accused subsequent to the registration of the case under the Code, for an investigation in that regard would have already commenced and allowing registration of further complaint would amount to an improvement of the facts mentioned in the original complaint. As is further made clear by the three-Judge Bench in Upkar Singh (supra), the prohibition does not cover the allegations made by the accused in the first FIR alleging a different version of the same incident. Thus, rival versions in respect of the same incident do take different shapes and in that event, lodgement of two FIRs is permissible.”
In the matter of : Nirmal Singh Kahlon versus State of Punjab – the top Court observed:
“We would proceed on the basis that on the self same cause of action, two First Information Reports would not be maintainable. A bare perusal of the First Information Report dated 14.6.2002 lodged at the instance of the Vigilance Officer shows that the same was general in nature. One of the several allegations contained therein referred to was that irregularities have been committed in the matter of recruitment of Panchayat Secretaries. No detail, however, was furnished. All the persons involved were not named. What types of irregularities have been committed were not stated.” Lawyers in India can provide more details regarding this matter.
Note:- We try our level best to avoid any kind of abusive content posted by users. Kindly report to us if you notice any, [email protected]