A second FIR is permissible for distinct occurrences revealing a larger conspiracy, despite overlapping allegations.

The applicants sought to quash FIR No. 11196010250014 of 2025, alleging offences under Sections 318(4), 336(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 339 and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The complainant alleged that accused No. 1 used a power of attorney which had previously been used to sell Block No. 53 and later declared misplaced and cancelled.

An earlier FIR concerning the alleged use of that power of attorney for a transaction involving Block No. 53 was registered in 2020, and a chargesheet was filed.

The 2025 FIR alleged further use of the power of attorney in transactions involving other land blocks, including allegedly forged documents and a sale deed obtained through civil proceedings in favour of accused No. 2.

The applicants argued that the later FIR was barred by the rule against multiple FIRs for the same transaction; accused No. 2 also claimed to be a bona fide purchaser.

A separate application, R/Criminal Misc. Application No. 8300 of 2026, was disposed of as not pressed.

Whether the 2025 FIR and the earlier FIR concerned the same incident or occurrence, so that the test of sameness required the later FIR to be quashed.

Whether the allegations in the later FIR disclosed distinct offences or a larger conspiracy warranting separate investigation.

Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, provides the basis for the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction invoked in the quashing application.

Under T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, a successive FIR is generally impermissible where it concerns the same or a connected cognizable offence committed in the course of the same transaction, subject to recognised exceptions.

Babubhai v. State of Gujarat requires application of the “test of sameness”: a second FIR may be quashed if both FIRs relate to the same incident or parts of the same transaction, but may proceed if they concern different incidents or crimes.

The authorities discussed by the Court recognise that a later FIR may be permissible where its scope is distinct, new facts emerge, or investigation reveals a larger conspiracy; Chirag M. Pathak v. Dollyben Kantilal Patel also cautions against quashing FIRs at the investigation stage through a detailed factual assessment.

The Court found that the first FIR was confined to the alleged use of the power of attorney in the transaction concerning Block No. 53, whereas the later FIR alleged subsequent uses of that instrument in relation to different land blocks, dealings with different persons, and a separate alleged conspiracy involving accused No. 2.

The later allegations also included allegedly forged documents and civil proceedings culminating in a decree and execution of a sale deed through a Court Commissioner.

Applying the test of sameness and the authorities permitting separate proceedings for distinct occurrences or a larger conspiracy, the Court held that the FIRs did not concern the same incident or occurrence.

It rejected Criminal Misc. Application No. 3453 of 2026 and declined to quash the FIR.

Criminal Misc. Application No. 8300 of 2026 was disposed of as not pressed.