1. Introduction

Under Section 173 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), information disclosing a cognizable offence ordinarily requires registration of an FIR, subject to the statutory scheme governing preliminary inquiry in appropriate cases. The assessment must focus on the substance of the factual allegations rather than the legal terminology, statutory provisions, or citations used by the informant. Where opposing parties present conflicting versions of the same occurrence, the police and courts must carefully distinguish between an impermissible second FIR, which merely supplements, improves, or elaborates upon the first version, and a legitimate counter-FIR, which sets out a genuine and materially distinct rival version of the occurrence warranting a separate investigation.

2. Fundamental Rules of FIR Registration

• Substance Over Nomenclature: The police officer must assess whether the factual narrative discloses a cognizable offence, irrespective of incorrect statutory sections, legal jargon, or elaborate drafting by legal counsel.
• Prohibition Against Forced Redrafting: Demanding that a complainant rewrite or modify a draft destroys the earliest authentic narrative, causes administrative delay, and invites suspicion of police suppression.
• Cognizable vs. Non-Cognizable Mix: Under Section 174(4) BNSS, where a complaint discloses both cognizable and non-cognizable offences, the case must be treated as a cognizable case in its entirety for investigation purposes.
• First Informant Is Not Conclusively the Victim: Reaching the police station first confers no presumption of truth or immunity. The order of arrival does not dictate who was the aggressor.

3. Dissecting the “Second FIR” vs. “Counter-FIR”

The law seeks to prevent abuse of process while ensuring a fair and comprehensive investigation of competing versions of an occurrence:

• Impermissible Second FIR: A subsequent FIR is ordinarily impermissible when it relates to the same occurrence or transaction and merely seeks to supplement, improve, or modify the version already recorded in the first FIR—for example, by adding further details, introducing additional accused persons, witnesses, weapons, or allegations. In such circumstances, the subsequent information should not ordinarily give rise to a fresh FIR; instead, it should be duly considered and incorporated into the ongoing investigation in accordance with the applicable provisions of the BNSS.
• Permissible Counter-FIR:

A subsequent FIR may be registered where it presents a genuine and materially distinct rival version of the same occurrence, particularly in cases involving cross-complaints, group clashes, or mutual assaults. The crucial consideration is whether the complaint discloses a distinct version of the occurrence requiring independent investigation, and not merely whether it has been filed by the person or party arrayed as an accused in the first FIR.

4. Judicial Evaluation: Tests for Determining the Permissibility of a Second FIR

• Test of Sameness: Applied where a subsequent complaint arises from the same occurrence and merely seeks to add facts, witnesses, accused persons, or further details to the version already recorded in the FIR. In such circumstances, a second FIR is ordinarily impermissible; the additional information should instead be considered and incorporated into the ongoing investigation in accordance with the applicable provisions of the BNSS, including the recording of witness statements under Section 180.
• Rival Narrative Test: Applied where the subsequent complaint presents a genuine and materially different version of the same occurrence, such as in cases involving cross-complaints arising from group clashes or mutual assaults. In such circumstances, a separate counter-FIR may be registered, and both cases should ordinarily be investigated fairly and, where appropriate, through coordinated investigation, so as to determine the role of each party and the true sequence of events on the basis of objective evidence.
• Separability Test: Applied where the subsequent complaint relates to a distinct occurrence, separate transaction, or an incident having a different factual foundation from the earlier FIR. Where the allegations disclose an independent and separate occurrence, a fresh FIR may be registered and investigated independently, subject to the applicable provisions of the BNSS.
• Factual Threshold Test: Used to filter complex, legalistic complaints. Registration depends strictly on whether the underlying facts disclose a cognizable offense, ignoring statutory citations or legal opinions drafted by lawyers.

5. Landmark Judicial Precedents

• T. Antony v. State of Kerala (2001) 6 SCC 181: Laid down the foundational rule against registering a second FIR for the same cognizable offence or same occurrence, holding that successive FIRs lead to grave abuse of process.
• Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash (2004) 13 SCC 292: Clarified T.T. Antony, establishing that the bar on second FIRs does not apply to a genuine counter-FIR filed by the accused/opposing party presenting a rival version of the same incident.
• Babubhai v. State of Gujarat (2010) 12 SCC 254: The Supreme Court held that two FIRs arising from the same occurrence may be permissible where they present genuinely distinct and conflicting versions of the incident, warranting separate investigation. However, a subsequent FIR is impermissible where it merely supplements, improves, or modifies the version contained in the earlier FIR and is, in substance, an attempt to introduce additional facts or allegations into the same case.
• Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. (2014) 2 SCC 1: The Constitution Bench held that registration of an FIR is mandatory where the information discloses a cognizable offence, subject to the limited scope for preliminary inquiry recognized by the Court. Although the judgment was rendered under Section 154 of the CrPC, its principles remain relevant to the corresponding statutory framework under Section 173 of the BNSS.

6. Standard Operating Guidelines for Police Officers

• Avoid Categorical Refusal: Do not reject a counter-FIR solely because an FIR for the incident already exists.
• Apply the Test of Sameness: If the second complaint merely seeks to add facts, accused persons, weapons, or other details concerning the same occurrence, it should not ordinarily result in a second FIR; the additional information should be duly considered and incorporated into the ongoing investigation in accordance with the applicable provisions of the BNSS.
• Investigate Cross-Cases Simultaneously: In group clashes or mutual fights, register the genuine counter-FIR, conduct joint field inspections, document physical injuries on both sides via medical examinations, and submit cross-case charge-sheets/closure reports based strictly on objective evidence.
• Preserve Neutrality: Refrain from suppressing the injuries of the accused side or selective recording of witness statements to favour the party that reported first.

7. Conclusion

The legal framework governing FIR registration seeks to balance investigative integrity with procedural fairness. The prohibition against successive FIRs for the same occurrence prevents abuse of process, while recognition of a genuine counter-FIR ensures that a materially distinct rival version is not suppressed merely because an earlier FIR has already been registered. Ultimately, the statutory requirements under Section 173 BNSS, coupled with fair and impartial investigation of cross-cases, require the police to focus on the substance of the allegations and objective evidence rather than the order in which the parties approach the police or the legal terminology used in their complaints.