Second FIR is impermissible if offenses arise from the same transaction and satisfy the consequence test.

The petitioner sought to quash the criminal proceedings and FIR in Mandu (Kuju) P.S. Case No. 171 of 2023.

This case was registered based on a police self-statement after officers arrived at a scene where another FIR (Case No. 170 of 2023) had already been lodged regarding a land dispute involving demolition and firing.

In Case No. 171, the police apprehended the petitioner and recovered firearms/ammunition.

The petitioner argued that Case No. 171 was an impermissible "second FIR" arising from the same transaction as Case No. 170.

Charges had already been framed by the Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, FTC, Ramgarh, in the challenged proceeding.

The court applied Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 Cr.P.C.) regarding inherent powers.

It relied on T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, which prohibits fresh investigations based on successive FIRs for the same transaction.

It applied the "substratum test" from Prem Chand Singh v. State of U.P., holding that mere addition of sections does not justify a second FIR.

the "consequence test" from C. Muniappan v. State of Tamil Nadu, which stipulates that if the second FIR arises as a consequence of the first, it is impermissible.

It also cited Anand Kumar Mohatta v. State (NCT of Delhi) to affirm that proceedings can be quashed even after a charge-sheet is filed or charges are framed to prevent abuse of process.

The Court examined the relationship between Mandu (Kuju) P.S. Case No. 170/2023 and No. 171/2023. It observed that the police registered the second FIR (171/2023) after reaching the same scene of occurrence described in the first FIR (170/2023).

Applying the "consequence test," the Court reasoned that the recovery of firearms and ammunition from the petitioner was a direct consequence of the incident and apprehension related to the first FIR.

Since the substratum of both cases was common, the Court determined that the two incidents were part of the same transaction.

Consequently, the second FIR was hit by the prohibitions established in T.T. Antony and Section 162 of the Cr.P.C., as all subsequent discoveries should have been treated as part of the investigation of the first FIR rather than a separate proceeding.

The Court held that the continuation of the second criminal proceeding amounted to an abuse of the process of law.

Accordingly, the Court quashed and set aside the entire criminal proceeding including the FIR in Mandu (Kuju) P.S. Case No. 171 of 2023 and the resulting S.T. Case No. 153 of 2025 qua the petitioner.

The Criminal Miscellaneous Petition was allowed.