Registration of a second FIR for the same transaction and occurrence constitutes an abuse of process.

In brief

The question

1. Whether the registration of a second FIR is permissible when it is founded upon the same set of facts and transaction as a previously registered FIR.

The court held

The Court answered the issues in the affirmative, holding that the second FIR was a clear abuse of the process of law.

It also directed

The Court allowed the application and quashed FIR Crime No. 282/2020 (P.S. Bareli) and all consequential proceedings.

It directed that the trial arising from the first FIR (Crime No. 222/2020, P.S. Pipariya) shall continue to its logical conclusion independently.

01Facts

The applicants, government/cooperative employees, were initially implicated in FIR Crime No. 222/2020 at P.S. Pipariya regarding the illegal transportation of 600 bags of urea intercepted on 12.07.2020.

¶ 2

A charge-sheet was filed under the Essential Commodities Act, and trial commenced in Pipariya.

¶ 2

Subsequently, on 10.08.2020, a second FIR (Crime No. 282/2020) was registered at P.S. Bareli, District Raisen, based on a complaint by respondent No. 4 regarding the same consignment and transaction.

¶ 2

The applicants challenged the second FIR, asserting it constitutes an abuse of process as it has remained pending for six years without a final report.

¶ 2-3

02Issues

i.1. Whether the registration of a second FIR is permissible when it is founded upon the same set of facts and transaction as a previously registered FIR.

¶ 6

ii.2. Whether the prolonged investigation of nearly six years without a final report violates the applicants' fundamental rights and justifies quashment.

¶ 9, 11

03Law Applied

The Court primarily applied Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (analogous to Section 482 Cr.P.C.) regarding inherent powers to prevent abuse of process.

¶ 1

It relied on the "test of sameness" established in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala (2001), which prohibits a second FIR for the same cognizable offence or occurrence.

¶ 7

Anju Chaudhary v. State of U.P. (2013) was cited to clarify that subsequent information forming part of the same transaction must be treated under the first FIR.

¶ 8

The court also referenced Robert Lalchungnunga Chongthu v. State of Bihar (2025) regarding the right against indefinite suffering due to prolonged investigations.

¶ 11

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528

04Reasoning

The Court compared both FIRs and determined that the "substratum of allegations" was identical, as both related to the misappropriation of the same 600 bags of urea loaded from Krishi Upaj Mandi, Bareli.

¶ 6

Since the investigative machinery had already reached its logical conclusion in the first FIR (filing of charge-sheet), the second FIR was deemed redundant and legally unsustainable.

¶ 7-8

The Court noted that the Bareli police failed to produce substantive material or file a charge-sheet despite a six-year lapse, which amounted to harassment.

¶ 9

It rejected the State's argument that the investigation should not be stifled, holding that the "same transaction" doctrine outweighs the fact that there was a different complainant.

¶ 4, 10