Second FIR On Same Background Not Barred When Allegations Are Distinct In Scope, Subject & Period: Allahabad High Court

A Bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh and Justice Lakshmi Kant Shukla observed that while Supreme Court's ruling in the case of TT Antony vs. State of Kerala 2001 prohibits a second FIR in respect of the same transaction or occurrence, it does not bar a subsequent FIR based on a different incident or discovery of a larger conspiracy or fresh facts.

"The “rule of sameness” must be applied pragmatically, and if the scope and object of the subsequent FIR are distinct from the earlier one, the bar against a second FIR does not operate", the Court held.

With these observations, the bench dismissed a plea moved by 3 persons accused of forging and using fabricated documents, including a Declaration and Distributor Application Form purportedly bearing counterfeit signatures, as well as a fake notarial seal of an Advocate to somehow shield themselves from the investigation in the main cheating case of 2019 pertaining to an investment scheme.

In this case, an FIR was filed against the petitioners in 2024 after the informant filed an application under Section 156(3) CrPC seeking Court's direction for registration of an FIR.

Before the HC, the counsels for the petitioners contended that the 2024 FIR was nothing but a second FIR on identical facts relating to the same financial transaction investigated earlier in an FIR lodged in 2021, and thus, it was hit by TT Antony case ruling.

Opposing the plea, the counsels for the complainant (respondent no. 4) argued that the present FIR arises from an entirely distinct transaction the alleged forgery and use of fabricated documents, committed after registration of the first FIR in 2021.

The respondents submitted that the forged documents were used during investigation and judicial proceedings to mislead authorities, constituting a fresh cause of action.

The Notary, in his written reply to legal notices, had categorically denied attesting or signing any such documents, confirming that the seals and signatures were "forged and fabricated".

After hearing the parties and perusing the case record, the High Court noted that the test of sameness was not satisfied in this case.

Referring to the Apex Court's rulings in the cases of T.T. Antony, Anju Chaudhary v. State of U.P. (2013) and State of Rajasthan vs. Surendra Singh Rathore 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 227, the Bench reiterated that while there cannot be two FIRs for the same incident, a subsequent FIR can be registered if it relates to a different incident, discloses a distinct offence or reveals a new dimension not covered by the earlier FIR.

The Court observed:

"The purpose of registration of an FIR is to set the criminal law in motion; thus, if fresh facts disclose a separate cognizable offence, it cannot be said that a second FIR is barred".

Now, analyzing both complaints, the Bench found that 2021 FIR pertained to alleged inducement and cheating in 2019 relating to an investment in QNet, whereas 2024 FIR was founded on subsequent and distinct allegations of forgery, fabrication and use of forged documents purportedly committed between July 2019 and June 2024.

"While the two FIRs may refer to a common background of financial transactions between the parties, their scope, subject matter, and period of commission are manifestly distinct…the offences alleged in the latter, under Sections 467, 468, and 471 IPC, are independent and self-contained, and cannot be said to have been the subject matter of the earlier investigation", the Court said.

Thus, the Court held that the bar against a second FIR operates only where both relate to the same incident or transaction and in this case, the test of sameness was not satisfied.

Moreover, the Court further noted, the present FIR was registered pursuant to the order of the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC after considering the material placed before him.

Consequently, finding no ground to exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction to quash the FIR, the writ petition was dismissed.

Appearances

Advocate Mohit Kumar Shukla appeared for the Petitioners

G. A., Kabeer Tiwari for the respondents

Case title - Parul Budhraja And 3 Others vs. State of U.P. And 3 Others 

Citation : 

Click Here To Read/Download Order