Introduction
The First Information Report (FIR), governed by Section 173 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), is the statutory mechanism through which information relating to a cognizable offense is formally brought to the notice of the police and an investigation is set in motion.
A recurring question in criminal procedure is whether a second or subsequent FIR can be registered in respect of the same occurrence, transaction, or set of facts after an earlier FIR has already been registered.
The settled legal position is that there ordinarily cannot be two FIRs in respect of the same cognizable offense or the same criminal transaction. Subsequent information relating to the same occurrence should ordinarily form part of the investigation in the first FIR. It may be recorded as a statement during investigation under Section 180 BNSS or may be dealt with through further investigation under Section 193(9) BNSS, as the circumstances require.
The rule, however, is not absolute. The Supreme Court has recognized several situations in which a subsequent FIR is legally permissible, including a counter-complaint presenting a rival version, a distinct incident, a materially different ambit of allegations, newly discovered facts, or a larger conspiracy. The latest significant reaffirmation of this doctrine is State of Rajasthan v. Surendra Singh Rathore (2025).
Fundamental Statutory and Constitutional Principles
One Investigation for the Same Criminal Transaction
Section 173 BNSS provides the mechanism for recording information relating to cognizable offenses. Once an FIR has been registered, subsequent information concerning the same occurrence or transaction does not ordinarily justify the registration of another FIR. Such information is to be incorporated into the investigation already underway.
The investigating agency may collect additional evidence, examine further witnesses, discover new facts, and, where legally permissible, undertake further investigation under Section 193(9) BNSS and submit the appropriate further report.
Article 21 and Fair Investigation
The prohibition against successive FIRs is principally rooted in the statutory scheme governing investigation and the constitutional requirement of a fair, just, and reasonable procedure under Article 21 of the Constitution. Multiple FIRs concerning the same transaction may expose an accused to repetitive investigations, conflicting proceedings, and unnecessary harassment.
It is important, however, to distinguish this principle from Article 20(2). The constitutional protection against double jeopardy applies to a person who has already been prosecuted and punished for the same offense; it is not, by itself, a general constitutional prohibition against the registration of a second FIR. The rule against a second FIR for the same transaction primarily arises from the statutory procedure governing criminal investigation and the judicial doctrine against the abuse of process.
Judicial Tests for Determining the Validity of a Second FIR
The Supreme Court has clarified that the validity of a second FIR depends not on its literal wording but on the identity and scope of the allegations. Courts apply two key principles:
- Test of Sameness: This asks whether the facts and allegations are identical to those in the first FIR. If so, the second is barred and liable to be quashed.
- Consequence Test: This examines whether the second offense is a direct consequence of the first. If yes, it too is barred.
Only when the subsequent information reveals a distinct, independent offense not covered by the first FIR can the second be maintained. This framework ensures procedural fairness while preventing abuse of the investigative process.
The Test of Sameness
The principle was authoritatively stated in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala (2001) and subsequently considered in Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash (2004) and Babubhai v. State of Gujarat (2010).
The court examines whether the second FIR relates to the same occurrence, the same transaction, or substantially the same set of facts as the first FIR. If the second FIR merely provides additional details, names additional witnesses, introduces further allegations arising from the same transaction, or seeks to improve upon the original version, a fresh FIR is ordinarily impermissible.
The Consequence and Transactional Connection
The courts also examine whether the offense disclosed in the second FIR is merely a consequence, continuation, or part of the same transaction investigated under the first FIR.
In Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. CBI (2013), the Supreme Court emphasized that offenses forming part of the same transaction should ordinarily be investigated within the framework of the first FIR rather than through a fresh FIR. The real inquiry, therefore, is whether the subsequent information discloses a genuinely distinct criminal transaction or merely additional facets of the original one.
When a Second FIR Is Ordinarily Impermissible
A second FIR is generally liable to be quashed where:
- It Concerns the Same Transaction: The allegations arise from precisely the same occurrence already covered by the first FIR.
- It Merely Amplifies the First FIR: The second complaint adds details, witnesses, documents, or allegations concerning the same incident.
- It Is Filed to Improve the Prosecution Case: A subsequent FIR cannot ordinarily be used to cure omissions or weaknesses in the original version.
- It Is an Attempt to Restart an Investigation: A fresh FIR cannot ordinarily be used to circumvent the statutory investigation process in the first case.
- It Follows an Adverse Police Report: If the police submit a closure or final report, the appropriate remedies ordinarily include a protest petition or a private complaint, rather than registering another FIR concerning the same transaction.
The essential question is not whether the second FIR contains new facts, but whether those facts constitute a new and distinct criminal transaction or merely additional material relating to the transaction already under investigation.
Recognized Exceptions: When a Second FIR May Be Maintained
The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized exceptions to the general prohibition.
Counter-Complaint or Rival Version
A second FIR may be permissible where it is a counter-complaint or presents a rival version of the same episode.
This is particularly important in cases involving clashes or group violence, where one party may allege that the other was the aggressor. Preventing the rival party from placing its version before the police could itself result in an unfair investigation. In Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash (2004), the Supreme Court clarified that T.T. Antony does not prohibit a genuine counter-case presenting a rival version of the occurrence.
Distinct Incident or Transaction
Where the subsequent FIR concerns a separate incident, it is not barred merely because the accused, complainant, nature of the offense, or surrounding circumstances are similar. In Anju Chaudhary v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2012), the Supreme Court emphasized that the determination depends upon the facts and circumstances and the existence of a separate transaction or occurrence.
Different or Wider Ambit of the Offense
A second FIR may be maintainable where its scope and ambit are materially different from the first FIR, even though both arise against a common background.
The Supreme Court’s decision in State of Rajasthan v. Surendra Singh Rathore (2025) is particularly important in this regard. The Court held that a second FIR may be permissible where the ambit of the two FIRs is different, even though they arise from the same set of circumstances.
Larger Conspiracy or Newly Discovered Facts
A second FIR may also be justified where subsequent investigation or other material reveals that the facts underlying the first FIR form part of a larger conspiracy, or where hitherto unknown facts or circumstances emerge that materially expand the scope of the criminality.
In Surendra Singh Rathore (2025), the first FIR concerned a particular bribery incident, whereas the subsequent FIR disclosed a much broader alleged scheme of corruption involving multiple transactions and a wider conspiracy. The Supreme Court restored the second FIR, holding that its scope was substantially different from that of the first.
The Contemporary Supreme Court Position
The judgment in State of Rajasthan v. Surendra Singh Rathore (decided on 19 February 2025) provides a useful contemporary summary of the law. The Supreme Court identified circumstances in which a second FIR may be permissible, including:
- Where it is a counter-complaint or rival version;
- Where the ambit of the two FIRs is different, even though they arise from the same circumstances;
- Where investigation reveals a larger conspiracy;
- Where hitherto unknown facts or circumstances come to light; and
- Where the incident itself is separate, whether the offenses are similar or different.
The Court ultimately held that although the High Court had treated the two FIRs as relating to the same offense, their scope was materially different: the first concerned a particular incident, whereas the second concerned a much wider alleged corruption scheme. The second FIR was therefore restored.
Normal Police Practice on Receipt of Second FIR
When a second complaint regarding the same incident is submitted, standard police practice dictates that a new FIR is not registered; instead, the details are recorded in the Station or General Diary, the informant is examined under Section 180 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), and the complaint is annexed to the existing FIR’s Case Diary to be investigated as part of the ongoing case.
Leading Case Laws
| Case | Principle |
|---|---|
| T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala (2001) | Ordinarily, there cannot be a second FIR concerning the same cognizable offense or the same occurrence; subsequent information should form part of the first investigation. |
| Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash (2004) | Clarified that the rule in T.T. Antony does not prohibit a genuine counter-complaint presenting a rival version of the same occurrence. |
| Babubhai v. State of Gujarat (2010) | Emphasized the “Test of Sameness” and held that a second FIR relating to the same transaction is ordinarily impermissible. |
| Anju Chaudhary v. State of U.P. (2012) | Explained that separate incidents or transactions may justify separate FIRs even where they arise against a common background. |
| Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. CBI (2013) | Reaffirmed that offenses forming part of the same transaction should ordinarily be investigated through the first FIR rather than by registering another FIR. |
| State of Rajasthan v. Surendra Singh Rathore (2025) | Reaffirmed and synthesized the exceptions: rival version, different ambit, larger conspiracy, newly discovered facts, and separate incidents. |
Remedies Against an Impermissible Second FIR
Where a second FIR is alleged to be legally impermissible, the aggrieved person may approach the High Court for appropriate relief, principally under:
Section 528 BNSS
The High Court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS to prevent abuse of the process of law and secure the ends of justice.
Constitutional Jurisdiction
Depending upon the facts, a petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution may also be invoked where the circumstances justify constitutional intervention.
Appropriate Course After a Final Report
Where the grievance arises because the police have submitted a closure/final report in the first FIR, the appropriate remedies ordinarily include a protest petition or a private complaint under Section 223 BNSS, rather than instituting another FIR concerning the same transaction.
Conclusion: The Rule Is Sameness, Not Mere Similarity
The law does not impose an absolute prohibition on every subsequent FIR involving the same persons, subject matter, or background. The decisive consideration is whether the second FIR concerns the same criminal transaction or instead discloses a distinct occurrence, rival version, materially different ambit, newly discovered facts, or a larger conspiracy.
Thus, the governing principle may be stated simply:
One transaction ordinarily calls for one FIR; a genuinely distinct transaction or materially different criminal scope may justify another.
The courts therefore look beyond the form and wording of the complaints and examine their substance, factual foundation, transactional relationship, and investigative scope. The 2025 decision in State of Rajasthan v. Surendra Singh Rathore reinforces this nuanced approach: the rule against a second FIR remains the general principle, but it cannot be applied mechanically where the subsequent FIR exposes criminality that is genuinely broader or distinct from the subject matter of the first investigation.
