A separate FIR is permissible where it presents a distinct version of a connected incident.

Three FIRs arose from a violent confrontation in Village Mahalaka, Meerut, on 17 May 2025. FIR No. 113 of 2025 was lodged by a relative of the applicants against members of the Village Pradhan’s group, alleging that they fired upon the applicants’ side. FIR No. 114 of 2025 was lodged by a member of the Pradhan’s group against members of the applicants’ side, alleging assault and an attempted extortion-related attack.

The police then registered FIR No. 115 of 2025, alleging that two groups rioted, exchanged gunfire, obstructed police personnel, and caused injuries to civilians. After a charge-sheet was filed in FIR No. 115, the Magistrate took cognizance and issued summons. The applicants sought to quash the charge-sheet and cognizance order, arguing that the police FIR was an impermissible third FIR concerning the same incident.

Whether FIR No. 115, registered after FIR Nos. 113 and 114 concerning events on the same date, was barred as an impermissible subsequent FIR for the same incident

Whether the charge-sheet and cognizance/summoning order in FIR No. 115 should be quashed under Section 528 BNSS

Section 528 BNSS empowers the High Court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice. The Court considered the principles concerning multiple FIRs under Sections 154 and 156(3) CrPC, now reflected in Sections 173 and 175(3) BNSS.

Under T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, a second FIR by the same complainant against the same accused seeking to improve or amplify a case already under investigation is generally impermissible. However, as explained in Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash and applied in Surender Kaushik v. State of Uttar Pradesh, that bar does not prevent a counter-FIR or a separate complaint presenting a distinct version, grievance, or factual spectrum; the doctrine of “sameness” is applied restrictively. The Court distinguished T.T. Antony and State of Rajasthan v. Surendra Singh Rathore on their facts.

The Court found that FIR Nos. 113 and 114 were cross-cases presenting rival accounts of the confrontation, while FIR No. 115 arose from the police’s account of a clash involving two armed groups, obstruction of police duties, and injuries to members of the public.

Although the FIRs concerned the same date and locality, the Court considered their complainants, allegations, motives, injured persons, and the timing attributed to the events materially different. It therefore treated FIR No. 115 as a distinct factual version rather than an attempt by the same complainant to embellish an earlier complaint.

The Court also considered that quashing it could leave the alleged harm to civilians and damage to police vehicles without a prosecution if the parties to the cross-cases later compromised.

It dismissed the application as devoid of merit and declined to quash the charge-sheet dated 14 July 2025 or the cognizance/summoning order dated 17 July 2025.