Supreme Court of India on TWO FIRs on same issue

In Upkar Singh Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors. (2004) 13 SCC
292, this Court considered the judgment in T.T. Antony
(supra) and explained that the judgment in the said case does
not exclude the registration of a complaint in the nature of
counter claim from the purview of the court. What had been
laid down by this Court in the aforesaid case is that any
further complaint by the same complainant against the same
accused, subsequent to the registration of a case, is prohibited
under the Cr.P.C. because an investigation in this regard
would have already started and further the complaint against
the same accused will amount to an improvement on the facts
mentioned in the original complaint, hence, will be prohibited
under section 162 Cr.P.C. However, this rule will not apply to
a counter claim by the accused in the first complaint or on his
behalf alleging a different version of the said incident. Thus,
in case, there are rival versions in respect of the same episode,
the Investigating Agency would take the same on two different
FIRs and investigation can be carried under both of them by
the same investigating agency and thus, filing an FIR
pertaining to a counter claim in respect of the same
incident having a different version of events, is
permissible.

In Rameshchandra Nandlal Parikh Vs. State of Gujarat
& Anr. (2006) 1 SCC 732, this Court reconsidered the earlier
judgment including T.T. Antony (supra) and held that in case
the FIRs are not in respect of the same cognizable offence or
the same occurrence giving rise to one or more cognizable
offences nor are they alleged to have been committed in the
course of the same transaction or the same occurrence as the
one alleged in the First FIR, there is no prohibition in
accepting the second FIR.

In Nirmal Singh Kahlon Vs. State of Punjab & Ors.
(2009) 1 SCC 441, this Court considered a case where an FIR
had already been lodged on 14.6.2002 in respect of the
offences committed by individuals. Subsequently, the matter
was handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI),
which during investigation collected huge amount of material
and also recorded statements of large number of persons and
the CBI came to the conclusion that a scam was involved in
the selection process of Panchayat Secretaries. The second
FIR was lodged by the CBI. This Court after appreciating the
evidence, came to the conclusion that matter investigated by
the CBI dealt with a larger conspiracy. Therefore, this
investigation has been on a much wider canvass and held that
second FIR was permissible and required to be investigated.
The Court held as under:
“The second FIR, in our opinion, would be
maintainable not only because there were
different versions but when new discovery
is made on factual foundations. Discoveries
may be made by the police authorities at a
subsequent stage. Discovery about a larger
conspiracy can also surface in another
proceeding, as for example, in a case of this
nature. If the police authorities did not make a
fair investigation and left out conspiracy aspect
of the matter from the purview of its
investigation, in our opinion, as and when the
same surfaced, it was open to the State and/or
the High Court to direct investigation in respect
of an offence which is distinct and separate
from the one for which the FIR had
already been lodged.” (Emphasis added).

Thus, in view of the above, the law on the subject
emerges to the effect that an FIR under Section 154 Cr.P.C. is
a very important document. It is the first information of a
cognizable offence recorded by the Officer In-Charge of the
Police Station. It sets the machinery of criminal law in motion
and marks the commencement of the investigation which ends
with the formation of an opinion under Section 169 or 170
Cr.P.C., as the case may be, and forwarding of a police report
under Section 173 Cr.P.C. Thus, it is quite possible that more
than one piece of information be given to the Police Officer Incharge
of the Police Station in respect of the same incident
involving one or more than one cognizable offences. In such a
case, he need not enter each piece of information in the Diary.
All other information given orally or in writing after the
commencement of the investigation into the facts mentioned in
the First Information Report will be statements falling under
Section 162 Cr.P.C.
In such a case the court has to examine the facts and
circumstances giving rise to both the FIRs and the test of
sameness is to be applied to find out whether both the FIRs
relate to the same incident in respect of the same occurrence
or are in regard to the incidents which are two or more parts of
the same transaction. If the answer is affirmative, the second
FIR is liable to be quashed. However, in case, the contrary is
proved, where the version in the second FIR is different and
they are in respect of the two different incidents/crimes, the
second FIR is permissible. In case in respect of the same
incident the accused in the first FIR comes forward with a
different version or counter claim, investigation on both the
FIRs has to be conducted.