Second FIR bar and the sameness test: rival versions with distinct allegations are maintainable, so quashing was refused.

A second FIR is barred only when it is, in substance, based on the same incident and the same set of allegations; a counter-case or rival version with a distinct factual matrix remains maintainable. Applying the test of sameness, the Court found that the later complaint involved different complainants, a different array of accused, and allegations that were not identical in substance. The plea that it was a prohibited second FIR was therefore rejected, and the FIR was not liable to be quashed on that ground.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned FIR was liable to be quashed as a second FIR relating to the same incident or occurrence.

Analysis: The governing principle is that the earliest information setting the criminal law in motion is the first FIR, and a second FIR on the same cognizable offence or the same occurrence is not permissible. At the same time, the prohibition does not extend to a counter-complaint or rival version arising out of the same episode. The controlling test is sameness: where the later complaint discloses a distinct version, different accused, or a different spectrum of allegations, it is not hit by the bar against a second FIR. The Court compared the two sets of allegations and found that they were not identical in substance, involved different complainants and a different array of accused, and could not be treated as an attempt to merely improve upon the first complaint.

Conclusion: The plea that the later FIR was a barred second FIR was rejected, and the FIR was held not liable to be quashed on that ground.

Ratio Decidendi: A second FIR is barred only when it is in truth and substance based on the same incident and the same set of allegations; a counter-case or rival version with distinct allegations is maintainable.

---