Second FIR barred only for the same occurrence; distinct incidents may be separately investigated, without a pre-registration hearing.

The Code bars a second FIR only for the same offence or same occurrence; where a later complaint concerns distinct incidents, separate transactions, different victims or different offences, registration is not barred. It also excludes any pre-registration hearing to the suspect before an FIR or a direction under Section 156(3), because the statutory scheme requires prompt investigation of cognizable offences. A Magistrate may direct registration and investigation under Section 156(3) when the complaint, on a bare reading, discloses cognizable offences; at that stage the Magistrate only sets the investigative process in motion and does not decide the merits.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a second FIR is barred when the later complaint relates to distinct incidents and different occurrences; (ii) whether a suspect is entitled to a hearing before registration of an FIR or before an order under Section 156(3) of the Code; (iii) whether the Magistrate can direct registration and investigation under Section 156(3) when the complaint discloses cognizable offences.

Issue (i): Whether a second FIR is barred when the later complaint relates to distinct incidents and different occurrences.

Analysis: Section 154 of the Code obliges the police to register information disclosing a cognizable offence, but the scheme of Sections 154, 156 and 190 does not permit a second FIR for the same offence or the same occurrence. The controlling test is whether the later information relates to the same incident, the same transaction, or merely supplements the earlier version. If the later complaint concerns separate incidents, different victims, different offences, or a distinct occurrence, it is not hit by the bar against a second FIR. Applying that test, the earlier FIR concerned a particular incident of damage to one shop by unknown persons, while the later complaint alleged a much wider communal conspiracy and multiple incidents at different places affecting different persons.

Conclusion: A second FIR is impermissible only for the same occurrence, but the later complaint here was founded on distinct incidents and was maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether a suspect is entitled to a hearing before registration of an FIR or before an order under Section 156(3) of the Code.

Analysis: The Code does not provide for any pre-registration hearing to a suspect. Requiring such a hearing would frustrate prompt investigation and defeat the statutory duty to register a cognizable offence. The rule of audi alteram partem is excluded at this stage by the scheme of the Code, while the person named or likely to be affected has remedies available after registration under the criminal process.

Conclusion: No pre-registration hearing is required, and the absence of notice before the FIR or the Section 156(3) direction did not vitiate the proceedings.

Issue (iii): Whether the Magistrate can direct registration and investigation under Section 156(3) when the complaint discloses cognizable offences.

Analysis: An order under Section 156(3) is passed before cognizance and is a direction to the police to exercise its primary investigative function. Where the complaint, on a bare reading, discloses cognizable offences requiring police investigation, the Magistrate may direct registration of an FIR and investigation. The Magistrate does not at that stage decide the merits finally, but only determines whether police investigation should be set in motion.

Conclusion: The Magistrate had the power to direct investigation under Section 156(3), and the High Court was justified in setting aside the contrary order.

Final Conclusion: The later complaint was not barred as a second FIR, no prior hearing was required before registration or investigation, and the Magistrate could lawfully direct investigation under Section 156(3) on the disclosure of cognizable offences.

Ratio Decidendi: A second FIR is barred only when it concerns the same offence or same occurrence, but it is permissible where it relates to a distinct incident or separate transaction; further, the scheme of the Code excludes a pre-registration hearing and authorises a Magistrate to direct investigation under Section 156(3) when cognizable offences are disclosed.

---