Successive FIRs By Same Informant Against Same Accused On Same Allegations Impermissible: SC
🧾 Principle: Successive FIRs by Same Informant Against Same Accused on Same Allegations Are Impermissible
– Supreme Court of India
🔹 Legal Issue
Whether multiple First Information Reports (FIRs) filed by the same complainant (informant) against the same accused, on identical or substantially similar facts, are legally valid under Indian criminal jurisprudence.
🔹 Legal Position
The Supreme Court has consistently held that repetition of FIRs based on same cause of action and same allegations is barred under law.
The registration of successive FIRs by the same informant on the same facts and allegations is abuse of process and violative of Article 21 (Right to Life and Liberty) of the Constitution.
Such practice amounts to double jeopardy, forum shopping, and harassment of the accused.
🔹 Rationale Behind the Principle
✅ Principle of Sameness:
If the subsequent FIR is based on the same transaction, then the first FIR covers the field, and no second FIR is maintainable.
✅ Abuse of Process:
Allowing successive FIRs leads to misuse of the criminal process, especially to pressurize or harass the accused.
✅ Legal Certainty:
Law mandates that there must be finality to criminal accusations based on the same set of facts.
🔹 Key Case Laws
1. ⚖️ T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC 181
Leading judgment on this principle.
Held:
“There cannot be two FIRs against the same accused for the same offence or same set of facts.”
Any second FIR based on same incident or transaction is liable to be quashed.
2. ⚖️ Anju Chaudhary v. State of U.P., (2013) 6 SCC 384
Reiterated that multiple FIRs on same cause of action are not allowed.
The concept of “sameness test” was clarified.
3. ⚖️ Babubhai v. State of Gujarat, (2010) 12 SCC 254
Explained the difference between permissible and impermissible multiple FIRs.
Held: If the allegations and parties are the same, second FIR is not maintainable.
4. ⚖️ Amitbhai Anil Chandra Shah v. CBI, (2013) 6 SCC 348
Affirmed the view in T.T. Antony.
Also added that second FIR even by a different informant may not be allowed if based on same facts.
🔹 Exceptions (When Multiple FIRs May Be Permissible)
A second FIR may be allowed only if:
| Scenario | Legality |
|---|---|
| New incident or transaction | ✅ Permissible |
| Different cause of action and distinct occurrence | ✅ Permissible |
| Different accused and parties involved | ✅ Permissible |
| Same incident, same accused, same allegations | ❌ Impermissible |
🔹 Supreme Court's View: Harassment of Accused
The Court has strongly deprecated the practice of:
Filing fresh FIRs with the same allegations, just to reopen investigation.
Using successive FIRs as pressure tactics.
Violating the principle of fair trial and natural justice.
🔹 Constitutional Angle
Article 21 – Right to Life & Liberty:
Repeated FIRs can curtail liberty of a person without due process.
Article 20(2) – Protection Against Double Jeopardy:
No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once.
🔹 Practical Implications
Once an FIR is registered and investigated, any new FIR with same allegations by same informant is liable to be quashed.
Accused can approach the High Court under Section 482 CrPC for quashing the second FIR.
If the informant has more evidence, it should be added in the existing FIR/investigation, not through a new FIR.
✅ Conclusion
The Supreme Court has categorically ruled that successive FIRs by the same informant against the same accused on identical allegations are impermissible. This rule upholds the integrity of the criminal justice system, protects individuals from harassment, and ensures finality of legal proceedings. Any second FIR violating this rule is liable to be quashed as abuse of process of law.
RELATED Blog
0 comments