Multiple FIRs/ 2nd Fir…

First Information Report (FIR) is a written document prepared by the police on receiving
information about the commission of a cognizable offence, offences for which the police may
arrest a person without warrant. It sets the criminal justice in motion, based on which
investigation is carried on. Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 does not
qualify “information” as the police have no discretion to conduct a preliminary inquiry or
have to be satisfied with the credibility and reasonableness.
In other words once an officer is provided information about a cognizable offence (it doesn’t
matter if it has happened or is presumed to happen soon enough) the officer is duty bound to
lodge the F.I.R by reducing the statement into written form and have it duly signed by
himself as well as the complainant/victim/person.

Second FIR is, as the name suggests, an FIR filed after the police have registered an initial
FIR for the offence committed. It is filed on the same offence by a different complainant,
may have different details and aspects of the case. Before understanding and answering the
permissibility of filing of a second FIR on the same offence, it is crucial to appreciate the
meaning of “same offence” and of the “sameness principle”.

Sameness principle:
The concept of sameness is to be construed in a restricted manner as it does not allow
registration of complaint that would amount to improvement of facts in the FIR that is filed at
the first instance. It further prohibits complaint against the same accused. The subject matter
of complaints is tested through de facto assessment of ‘test of sameness’. If the complaints
are related to same incident in same occurrence or is part of the same transaction, the subject
matter of both the complaints are same. Events are part of the same transaction if they are
related to same incident at the given place in close proximity of time. In cases where
allegations in the FIR are different and separate having different spectrum then it will be
regarded as counter-complaint and not as efforts to improve allegations made in the first
instance.
Same offence:

Same offence is one arising out of same occurrence, transaction and incident implicating the
same accused even if instituted in different courts. Where the accused and allegations are
same, but the nature, mode and manner of the offence and commission of it is distinct,
subsequent FIR is considered as not registered on the same offence. From the provisions of
the Code and a plethora of cases of the Apex Court, it is clear that in cases where the
complaints are related to same offence with the same subject matter, subsequent complaints
are liable to be quashed. Whereas, if they offer rival contentions and do not improve
information obtained earlier, they will be characterized as counter-complaint and will not be
prohibited meaning thereby if the 1st Fir doesn’t contain the wider aspects that the 2nd or 3rd
person has stated in his statement to the police then the 2nd Fir will be considered as it’s an
exception where a string of offences are related and a small chain links to a big one then the
2nd FIR is valid.

Test of sameness:
The legality of the second FIR was extensively discussed in T.T Antony vs State of Kerala
(2001).  The court established the test of sameness which means that unless in both the two
cases, where the first and second FIR is registered respectively, the FIRs appear to be
substantially different from each other such as in facts and circumstances, the second FIR
cannot be filed. This means that the facts and circumstances giving rise to the two FIRs must
be different, or the offence committed in the two must be different, or the person accused of
committing the offence is different. Only then, the second FIR is permissible. 

The court further observed, that the scheme of provisions starting from Section 154 of CrPC
to Section 173 CrPC that is from the starting to the ending of an investigation relates to the
earliest or the first information given in the commission of a cognizable offence. This is what
satisfies the requirement of Section 154 CrPC. 

Thus, there is no scope to start an afresh investigation on receipt of every subsequent

information received in respect of the same cognizable offence. 

The court can apply the test of sameness when:

 It has to examine the facts and circumstances that are giving rise to two FIRs. 
 In trying to find out whether it relates to the same incident, the court has to either
look at the occurrence of the two incidents and their relationship with each other or
the transactions of the occurrence if it has occurred in parts. 
 If it finds out that the occurrence of the offence is the same or the different
transaction forms the part of the same occurrence, the second FIR is liable to be
quashed. 
 But if the two occurrences are based on different versions and two different
crimes, the second FIR shall sustain.
 This will also cover those situations where the police get subsequent information
through practice, convenience, and preponderance in further investigation allowed
under Section 173(8).

Hence, at the end of the further investigation, if both the gravamen of charges in the two FIR
is in substance and truth the same, the second FIR cannot be filed. 
In short registering multiple FIRs is contrary to the spirit of Section 154 of the Code. Both
Section 156, that grants police and Magistrate the power to investigate and order such
investigation, and Section 190 that provides for the Magistrate to take cognizance of
offences, cannot be construed to give effect to more than one FIR for an occurrence. Police
investigation has to lead to filing of report to the Magistrate in terms of Section 173(2) and is
appropriate to adhere to the settled principles of law. Section 154 contains inbuilt safeguards
against abuse of power by police, double jeopardy and for fair investigation.

Sughran Bibi Case:

In Pakistan, the landmark case is Mst Sughran Bibi vs the State. The Supreme Court of
Pakistan answered the question that whether a separate FIR could be registered for every new
version of the same incident when commission of the relevant cognizable offense already
stood reported to the police, and an FIR already stood registered in such regard. The Supreme
Court held that after entering the first information relating to commission of a cognizable
offence in the prescribed book under rule 24.5 of the Police Rules, 1934, the matter became a
‘case’, and afterwards every step taken in the investigation was a step taken in that case. The
honourable court observed that under Police Rules, 1934, when a matter is reported to the
police it is given an annual serial number and that number is used forever demonstrating that
case in which it is given.

The court further held that it is not the matter how many numbers of different versions are
received by the police in that case; how many numbers of different circumstances arise in that
case; how many culprits are brought to the notice of the investigating agency. All is that in
one single case. And all such versions in that case regarding that same incident though
brought into notice by different persons are to be recorded by under S. 161  CrPC in the same
case. The court concluded that no separate FIR is required to be registered for any new
version in the same case and the same incident.

EXAMPLES WITH REFERENCE TO CASE LAWS:

1. Criminal Misc. Application No.S-378 of 2021: In this the learned judge decreed that
the case of the present applicants falls within the parameters as settled by Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case of Sughran Bibi & resultantly, this application was thereby
allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated 26.05.2021, passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge was set-aside.
2. Azam Khan Swatti: Multiple FIRs lodged but High Court then barred; stating that
lodging more than 1 Fir against the same offence is misuse of power.

ETC.