A second FIR arising from the same transaction is impermissible and must be quashed.

The informant, Kamlesh Yadav, alleged that on 9 August 2015, while driving a Tata Indica vehicle bearing registration no. BR-02AA-3582, three persons forcibly removed him from the vehicle by threatening him with a weapon and took away the vehicle and certain mobile phones.

The formal Dhanarua P.S. Case No. 284 of 2015 was registered on 13 August 2015 under Section 392 IPC.

The petitioner, Rakesh Kumar, was not named in the FIR and was allegedly implicated subsequently during investigation on the basis of a co-accused’s disclosure/confessional statement; no recovery was made from him and no charge-sheet had been submitted against him in the case.

During the proceedings, the State disclosed that Deepnagar P.S. Case No. 296 of 2015 had already been registered on 10 August 2015 concerning the same Tata Indica vehicle and three mobile phones, and described it as connected with the Dhanarua case.

The petitioner had also been acquitted in the Deepnagar case by judgment dated 27 July 2023.

He therefore sought quashing of the Dhanarua FIR and all consequential proceedings under Section 482 CrPC.

Whether Dhanarua P.S. Case No. 284 of 2015 constituted an impermissible second FIR and investigation concerning the same occurrence or transaction already covered by Deepnagar P.S. Case No. 296 of 2015?

Whether continuation of the Dhanarua proceedings against the petitioner amounted to abuse of the process of law warranting exercise of the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC?

The Court applied Section 482 CrPC, which empowers the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of any court and secure the ends of justice, along with the categories recognised in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, including proceedings barred by law or manifestly constituting abuse of process.

Under T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC 181, a second FIR cannot be registered in respect of the same occurrence or connected cognizable offences forming part of the same transaction; subsequent information must ordinarily be dealt with through further investigation and an appropriate report under Section 173 CrPC.

Babubhai v. State of Gujarat, (2010) 12 SCC 254, and Anju Chaudhary v. State of U.P., (2013) 6 SCC 384, require application of the “test of sameness” to determine whether two FIRs concern the same incident or transaction.

The Court also relied on Rutvij Bhagat Singh Wakhare v. State of Maharashtra, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1384, and State of Rajasthan v. Surendra Singh Rathore, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 358, which recognise limited exceptions permitting a subsequent FIR, such as a counter-case, distinct occurrence, materially different ambit, larger conspiracy, or genuinely new facts.

In determining whether events form part of the same transaction, the Court referred to unity of purpose and design, proximity of time and place, and continuity of action, as explained in State (NCT of Delhi) v. Khimji Bhai Jadeja.

The Court found that both cases centred on the same Tata Indica vehicle, the same alleged taking away of the vehicle, and the same mobile phones.

The Deepnagar case had been registered on 10 August 2015, before the formal registration of the Dhanarua FIR on 13 August 2015, and the State itself acknowledged the connection between the two proceedings.

The fact that the cases were registered at different police stations and invoked different offences did not alter the underlying factual transaction, since the legal test depends on the factual foundation rather than merely the sections mentioned in the FIRs.

The alleged forcible removal of the informant, taking away of the vehicle, and subsequent recovery or possession of the vehicle and mobile phones were treated as connected stages of one chain of events, not as independent occurrences.

The Court further held that the delay in registering the Dhanarua FIR, the petitioner’s absence from the original FIR, and his subsequent implication were relevant cumulative circumstances, although none independently warranted quashing.

The State failed to establish that the Dhanarua case was a counter-case, rival version, separate occurrence, or larger conspiracy falling within an exception to the prohibition against successive FIRs.

The Court therefore concluded that continuing the Dhanarua prosecution would permit an impermissible second investigation into the same transaction.

Its continuation against Rakesh Kumar amounted to abuse of the process of the court and was legally impermissible under the principles laid down in T.T. Antony and subsequent decisions.

Accordingly, the FIR dated 13 August 2015 under Section 392 IPC and all consequential proceedings were quashed qua the petitioner, Rakesh Kumar, and the application under Section 482 CrPC was allowed.