A second FIR for the same occurrence is impermissible; further investigation lies under Section 173(8).

The complainant, Md. Mohasin, filed Complaint Case No. 312(C)/2002 alleging that the petitioners and others entered his home on 24 May 2002, threatened and assaulted him, demanded rangdari, and took money and other articles

The complaint led to Salakhua P.S. Case No. 49/2002. After investigation, a final form was submitted, and the CJM took cognizance under Sections 341, 323 and 448 IPC on 28 January 2003

A second police case, Salakhua P.S. Case No. 92/2003, was later registered on the basis of substantially the same complaint and allegations. The CJM took cognizance in that case under Sections 341, 447, 323, 379 and 34 IPC on 19 January 2006

The petitioners withdrew their challenge to P.S. Case No. 49/2002, with liberty to raise their grounds before the trial court; the surviving challenge concerned P.S. Case No. 92/2003

1. Whether the second FIR, Salakhua P.S. Case No. 92/2003, could lawfully be registered and pursued when it arose from the same complaint, occurrence and transaction already investigated in P.S. Case No. 49/2002

2. Whether the cognizance order and consequential proceedings in P.S. Case No. 92/2003 should be quashed, while leaving the challenge to P.S. Case No. 49/2002 open for the petitioners to raise before the trial court

Under Sections 154 and 156 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a second FIR is ordinarily impermissible where it concerns the same cognizable offence, occurrence or transaction already covered by an earlier FIR; the “test of sameness” determines whether the later case is genuinely distinct.

T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC 181, bars a fresh investigation through successive FIRs concerning the same occurrence and recognises further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC as the appropriate course where further material emerges

Babubhai v. State of Gujarat, (2010) 12 SCC 254, applies the test of sameness while recognising that a genuinely different incident or a counter-version may stand differently

Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. CBI, (2013) 6 SCC 348, reiterates that a second FIR concerning the same transaction, absent a cross-case, is impermissible and implicates Article 21

The Court found that both police cases arose from the same complaint, involved substantially the same accused, and concerned the same alleged entry, threats, assault and taking of property; the earlier case had already resulted in investigation and submission of a final form

Applying the test of sameness, the Court held that different penal sections did not transform the allegations into a new occurrence. The later case was neither based on a distinct incident nor a counter-version, and any further investigation should have proceeded under Section 173(8) CrPC rather than through a fresh FIR

The Court therefore treated continuation of the second case as impermissible and inconsistent with the fairness protected by Article 21

The petitioners’ challenge to Salakhua P.S. Case No. 49/2002, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 479/2002, was permitted to be withdrawn, with liberty to raise available grounds before the trial court at the appropriate stage. The application was allowed in those terms.