Case Note & Summary
The matter arose from a criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) filed before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur. The petitioner, Shubham Gurjar, sought quashing of FIR No.08/2026 dated 04.02.2026 registered at Police Station Special Police Station-SOG, District ATS & SOG for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 66D of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008. The petitioner contended that the impugned FIR was a second FIR based on the same facts and evidence gathered by the SOG during investigation in earlier FIR No.34/2025 registered at the same police station for similar offences including Section 419 IPC and Section 66D of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008. The earlier investigation had uncovered that the petitioner was allegedly the kingpin in a fake FMGE certificate racket; it was alleged that he had circulated a number of FMGE certificates to several persons and that as many as 73 other persons had been identified who applied for internship in Rajasthan Medical Council on the basis of such fake certificates. Both investigations had been completed and charge-sheets had been filed against the petitioner in both FIRs. The petitioner argued that under the law laid down in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala and Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. Central Bureau of Investigation, a second FIR on the same facts and evidence is not maintainable and that the proper course would have been further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The State opposed the petition, contending that the second FIR disclosed a larger conspiracy and additional accused persons, which justified separate registration. The court examined the scheme of Sections 154, 155, 156, 157, 162, 169, 170 and 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the principles in T.T. Antony, Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash, Ram Lal Narang v. State (Delhi Administration), Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah, State of Jharkhand v. Lalu Prasad Yadav, C. Muniappan v. State of Tamil Nadu, Babubhai v. State of Gujarat, Surender Kaushik v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Awadesh Kumar Jha v. State of Bihar. The court observed that the rule against a second FIR is not absolute; a subsequent FIR may be maintainable where new facts disclose a larger conspiracy or a distinct transaction, and the crucial test is whether the two FIRs relate to the same occurrence or same transaction. The court noted that mere similarity in the nature of offences is not sufficient to attract the prohibition, and a genuine counter-version or a separate transaction stands on a different footing. However, the extracted text does not record the final order; it concludes in the middle of the court's analysis of the expression "same transaction" and therefore the definitive relief granted is not available in the provided portion.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Second FIR - Scope of Prohibition - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Sections 154, 155, 156, 157, 162, 169, 170, 173, 173(8) - A second FIR based on same facts and evidence is ordinarily impermissible; upon discovery of further material during investigation, the proper course is further investigation and further report under Section 173(8) CrPC, not registration of a fresh FIR - In the context of quashing FIR No.08/2026 for fake FMGE certificates, the court examined the scheme of the Code and observed that the earliest information relating to a cognizable offence alone satisfies Section 154 CrPC - Held that mere collection of further evidence, oral or documentary, during investigation obliges the investigating agency to forward supplementary reports rather than register a second FIR (Paras 5-7). B) Criminal Procedure - Second FIR - Exceptions for Larger Conspiracy and Distinct Transactions - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Sections 154, 173(8) - There is no absolute bar on registration of a subsequent FIR where, during investigation into the earlier FIR, new facts and circumstances come to light disclosing a larger conspiracy or a distinct occurrence, transaction or criminal design - The court emphasized that if the subsequent FIR is merely another version, elaboration or continuation of the same occurrence, registration is impermissible, but mere existence of common facts or accused persons does not necessarily render a subsequent FIR invalid if it discloses a distinct transaction - Held that the court must consider the nature of allegations, circumstances giving rise to both FIRs, continuity or otherwise of criminal acts, and relationship between the transactions (Paras 8-9). C) Criminal Procedure - Sameness Test - Distinction Between Same Offence and Similar Offences - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Sections 154, 173(8) - The fact that two FIRs relate to offences of a similar nature does not establish that they concern the same offence or same transaction; the court must ascertain whether the factual foundation and criminal acts alleged are substantially identical - The court relied on State of Jharkhand v. Lalu Prasad Yadav, C. Muniappan v. State of Tamil Nadu and Babubhai v. State of Gujarat on the test of sameness - Held that a second FIR is liable to be quashed only if both FIRs relate to the same incident or same occurrence, but is permissible where the version in the second FIR is different and pertains to two different incidents or crimes (Paras 10-12). D) Criminal Procedure - Counter Complaints and Cross Cases - Different Footing - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Sections 154, 173(8) - A genuine counter-version of the same occurrence stands on a different footing and cannot be equated with a subsequent complaint merely seeking to enlarge or improve upon the allegations already registered - In the same incident, if the accused in the first FIR comes forward with a different version or counter claim, investigation on both FIRs has to be conducted - Held that prohibiting a counter complaint would lead to serious consequences and deprive an aggrieved victim of the legitimate right to bring the real accused to book; thus a counter complaint is permissible (Paras 6,12-13). E) Criminal Procedure - Separate Transactions - Subsequent FIR Maintainable - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Sections 154, 173(8) - A subsequent occurrence which constitutes a separate transaction cannot necessarily be treated as part of the same investigation merely because it has some connection with the earlier occurrence - The court referred to Awadesh Kumar Jha v. State of Bihar recognizing that later allegations arising out of a separate transaction may justify a separate FIR - Held that distinct transactions, even with some factual or causal connection, do not automatically attract the prohibition against a second FIR (Para 14).
Issue of Consideration
Whether FIR No.08/2026 registered at Special Police Station SOG was maintainable as a second FIR on the same facts and evidence as earlier FIR No.34/2025; whether subsequent FIR disclosing larger conspiracy and additional accused/offences is permissible; whether mere discovery of additional evidence or accused during investigation of earlier FIR required further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC instead of fresh FIR.
Law Points
- Second FIR on same facts ordinarily impermissible
- further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC proper course
- no absolute bar where subsequent FIR discloses larger conspiracy or distinct transaction
- test of sameness is same transaction/occurrence
- similarity of offences not sufficient
- genuine counter-version stands on different footing
- separate transaction may justify separate FIR
