Second FIR for the same incident and accused is impermissible and liable to be quashed.

The petitioner sought to quash an FIR (Crime No. 10 of 2026) registered against him at the Kumaratchi Police Station.

The case arose from an incident where the petitioner allegedly intercepted, verbally abused, and assaulted an artist and his friend with an iron rod after they had stopped to consume liquor.

This incident led to the registration of a primary FIR (Crime No. 8 of 2026) under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

Subsequently, a second FIR (Crime No. 10 of 2026) was registered by the police based on a report from a Special Sub-Inspector following a call to the emergency line regarding the same event.

1. Whether a second FIR can be maintained when it relates to the same incident and same accused covered by an existing FIR.

2. Whether the FIR should be quashed based on the petitioner’s claim that the allegations are false and no injuries occurred.

The court applied the fundamental legal principle that multiple FIRs against the same accused for the same incident or "same offence" are impermissible.

It also utilized Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which governs the High Court's inherent power to quash proceedings to prevent abuse of process.

The court applied the principle that disputed questions of fact regarding the veracity of allegations or the extent of injuries are matters for the investigating authority and cannot be determined by the court on a mere ipse dixit (unsupported statement) during a quashing petition.

The court observed that both Crime No. 8 of 2026 and Crime No. 10 of 2026 pertained to the same set of facts, the same incident, and the same accused.

It determined that the second FIR was redundant because the police were already investigating the matter under the first FIR.

While the petitioner argued the charges were baseless, the court reasoned that such factual defenses must be evaluated during the investigation rather than at the quashing stage.

To preserve the evidence from the second report, the court reasoned that the officer who filed the second FIR should instead be treated as a witness within the original investigation.

It held that the investigation in Crime No. 8 of 2026 must proceed, and the Special Sub-Inspector’s report should be treated as a witness statement.

The petitioner was granted liberty to provide his own information to the Investigating Officer during the ongoing probe.