Second FIR bar and vague allegations cannot sustain proceedings when they arise from the same transaction and lack essential offence ingredients.

Subsequent FIRs based on the same search and seizure operations, the same accused, and the same broad allegations of conversion of unaccounted currency were treated as part of one composite transaction and not as independent proceedings. Applying the settled rule against a second FIR for the same cognizable offence or connected offences arising from the same occurrence, the Court held that the later FIRs were impermissible as against the petitioners. It also found the allegations too vague to disclose a prima facie case, since they did not specify any public servant, bank, account, time, or concrete transaction showing the essential ingredients of cheating, criminal breach of trust, conspiracy, or corruption.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the subsequent FIRs were impermissible second FIRs arising out of the same occurrence or same transaction as the earlier FIR; (ii) Whether the allegations in the subsequent FIRs disclosed a prima facie case for the offences invoked.

Issue (i): Whether the subsequent FIRs were impermissible second FIRs arising out of the same occurrence or same transaction as the earlier FIR.

Analysis: The FIRs were founded on the same set of search and seizure operations by the Income Tax Department, involved the same accused, referred to the same broad allegations of conversion of unaccounted currency, and were linked by a common substratum. The Court applied the settled principle that there can be no second FIR in respect of the same cognizable offence, same occurrence, or connected offences forming part of the same transaction. On the admitted materials, the impugned FIRs were treated as part of the same composite occurrence already covered by the earlier FIR.

Conclusion: The subsequent FIRs were impermissible and liable to be quashed as against the petitioners.

Issue (ii): Whether the allegations in the subsequent FIRs disclosed a prima facie case for the offences invoked.

Analysis: The allegations did not identify any specific public servant, bank, bank branch, bank account, time, or precise transaction showing exchange of old currency for new currency or a definite role in the alleged conspiracy. The Court found that the materials were vague and that no independent incriminating foundation had been shown to sustain the invoked offences of cheating, criminal breach of trust, criminal conspiracy, or corruption. In the absence of sufficient material disclosing the basic ingredients of the offences, continuation of the proceedings was held to be unwarranted.

Conclusion: The allegations did not disclose a sufficient prima facie basis to sustain the proceedings.

Final Conclusion: The impugned FIRs could not stand as independent proceedings and were quashed, while liberty was reserved to treat the allegations as supplementary to the first FIR.

Ratio Decidendi: A subsequent FIR is not maintainable where it arises from the same transaction and common substratum as an earlier FIR, and vague allegations without concrete material disclosing the essential ingredients of the alleged offences cannot sustain the prosecution.

---