Case Note & Summary
The petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) sought the quashing of FIR Crime No.10 of 2026 registered at Kumaratchi Police Station, Cuddalore District. The case originated from an incident on 17.01.2026, when the defacto complainant Aravindan, a Pumbai Artist, and his friend Singaravadivel were intercepted by the petitioner while consuming liquor by the roadside. The petitioner allegedly enquired about their identity, and despite being given correct details, verbally abused and attacked Aravindan with an iron rod. A complaint was lodged, leading to the registration of FIR No.8 of 2026 under Sections 126(2), 296(b), 118(1), and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). Subsequently, the injured person called the police helpline (100), and the Special Sub-Inspector (second respondent) reported the same incident, resulting in a second FIR, Crime No.10 of 2026, by the same police station. The core legal issue was whether the second FIR for the same incident and against the same accused could be sustained. The petitioner argued that the allegation was false and no injury had occurred. The High Court, however, held that such a claim could not be accepted on the mere ipse dixit of the petitioner and was a matter for investigation. The Court observed that both FIRs related to the same offence and the same accused, and applying the settled principle that a second FIR for the same incident cannot stand, it quashed Crime No.10 of 2026. The Court directed that the investigation should continue only in Crime No.8 of 2026, and the respondent police could record the statement of the Special Sub-Inspector as a witness. The petitioner was also permitted to furnish information to the investigating officer if he chose to do so. The criminal original petition was accordingly allowed, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of FIR - Duplicate FIR - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Section 528 - The second FIR (Crime No.10 of 2026) registered by the same police station for the same incident and against the same accused as the earlier FIR (Crime No.8 of 2026) cannot stand and was ordered to be quashed - Held that the respondent police may proceed with investigation in the first FIR and record the statement of the Special Sub-Inspector as a witness (Paras 4, 6). B) Criminal Procedure - Investigation - Role of Investigating Authority - The contention that the allegation was false and no injury occurred could not be accepted on the mere ipso dixit of the petitioner; such determinations are for the investigating authority during investigation (Para 5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the second FIR in Crime No.10 of 2026 should be quashed as it relates to the same incident and accused as the earlier FIR in Crime No.8 of 2026.
Final Decision
The criminal original petition is allowed. FIR in Crime No.10 of 2026 on the file of the first respondent police is quashed. Investigation to continue in Crime No.8 of 2026. Respondent police may record statement of Special Sub-Inspector as a witness. Petitioner may furnish information to the Investigating Officer. Connected miscellaneous petition closed.
Law Points
- Second FIR for the same incident and same accused cannot stand and must be quashed
- investigation to continue in the first FIR.
