Case Note & Summary
The petition before the Rajasthan High Court Bench at Jaipur was filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) seeking 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 and Section 66D of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008. The petitioner contended that this was a second FIR based on the same facts and evidence as earlier FIR No.34/2025 registered at the same police station for offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC and Section 66D of the IT Act. The first FIR No.34/2025 had been registered earlier. During its investigation, the SOG allegedly found that the petitioner was the kingpin of a fake FMGE certificate racket and had circulated numerous such certificates; as many as 73 other persons were identified as having applied for internship in the Rajasthan Medical Council on the basis of fake FMGE certificates. Based on this material, the second FIR No.08/2026 was registered. Both investigations were completed and charge-sheets were filed, including against the petitioner. The petitioner argued that the second FIR was not maintainable under the law laid down in T.T. Antony versus State of Kerala and Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah versus Central Bureau of Investigation, and that any further material should have been dealt with by way of further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The State opposed the petition, contending that the investigation in the first FIR revealed a larger conspiracy involving new facts and distinct victims, warranting a separate FIR. The court considered a series of Supreme Court precedents, including T.T. Antony, Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash, 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 scheme of the Criminal Procedure Code contemplates registration and investigation of the earliest information relating to a cognizable offence, and that subsequent information regarding the same occurrence cannot ordinarily give rise to a fresh FIR. However, the court also noted that there is no absolute bar on a subsequent FIR where, during investigation of the earlier FIR, new facts and circumstances disclose the existence of a larger conspiracy or a distinct transaction. The court was required to apply the sameness test to compare the two FIRs, examining the nature of allegations, circumstances, continuity of criminal acts, and the relationship between transactions. The available excerpt of the judgment ends before the final decision, so the operative direction is not included in the provided text.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Second FIR - Prohibition against multiple FIRs for same occurrence - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Sections 154, 155, 156, 157, 162, 169, 170, 173(8) - The petitioner challenged FIR No.08/2026 as an impermissible second FIR arising from the same facts and evidence as earlier FIR No.34/2025. The court examined T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala which held that once the earliest information of a cognizable offence is registered, subsequent information relating to the same occurrence cannot ordinarily give rise to a fresh FIR, and further material must be handled through further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC. Held that mere discovery of additional evidence or accused persons does not justify separate FIR (Paras 5-7). B) Criminal Procedure - Counter Complaint and Larger Conspiracy - Exception to second FIR bar - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 173(8) and Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Section 528 - The State contended that during investigation of the first FIR, the petitioner was found to be the kingpin of a larger conspiracy involving fake FMGE certificates and 73 additional persons. The court noted Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash clarified that T.T. Antony does not bar a genuine counter complaint or a further complaint based on material gathered during investigation revealing a larger conspiracy. Held that separate FIR may be permissible if new facts disclose distinct occurrence or larger criminal design (Paras 6-8). C) Criminal Procedure - Sameness Test - Distinguishing same offence from similar offence - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Sections 154, 173(8) - Court must compare nature of allegations, circumstances giving rise to both FIRs, continuity or otherwise of criminal acts, and relationship between transactions. Reliance placed on State of Jharkhand v. Lalu Prasad Yadav, Babubhai v. State of Gujarat, and C. Muniappan v. State of Tamil Nadu. Held that if subsequent FIR is merely another version or continuation of same occurrence, registration is impermissible; if it discloses distinct occurrence or transaction, it may stand (Paras 9-12). D) Criminal Procedure - Separate Transaction Exception - Subsequent occurrence as distinct transaction - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 173(8) - Awadesh Kumar Jha v. State of Bihar recognized that a subsequent occurrence constituting a separate transaction cannot be treated as part of the same investigation merely because it has some connection with the earlier occurrence. The court was to apply this distinction to the facts of the two SOG FIRs (Para 14). E) Criminal Procedure - Quashing Petition under BNSS - Scope of Section 528 BNSS - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Section 528 - The petition sought quashing of FIR No.08/2026 registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC and Section 66D IT (Amendment) Act, 2008. The court observed that there is no absolute bar on a subsequent FIR where new facts disclose larger conspiracy, and the matter required application of the sameness test. Final decision on quashing not available in the provided text (Paras 1-3, 8-9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether FIR No.08/2026 dated 04.02.2026 registered at Special Police Station-SOG is an impermissible second FIR based on the same facts and evidence as earlier FIR No.34/2025; whether discovery of new facts or larger conspiracy during investigation permits registration of a separate FIR or only further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC; and the scope of quashing under Section 528 BNSS.
Final Decision
Not mentioned in the provided excerpt of the judgment.
Law Points
- Second FIR on same occurrence not maintainable
- further information to be handled under Section 173(8) CrPC
- no absolute bar on subsequent FIR where larger conspiracy disclosed
- counter complaint permissible
- sameness test required to distinguish same offence from similar offence
- separate transaction may justify separate FIR
- quashing under Section 528 BNSS
