Second FIR doctrine limits quashing where allegations involve distinct transactions, separate participants, and different modus operandi.

A second FIR is impermissible only where it concerns the same cognizable offence, same occurrence, or a continuation of the earlier transaction. Here, the Bombay HC found the two FIRs materially distinct: the alleged transactions, bank accounts, forged documents, participants, entities, and modus operandi differed, and the later complaint concerned separate instances of illegal forex remittance. Applying the rule that quashing must be exercised sparingly and without a mini trial at the threshold, the Court held the second FIR maintainable and declined to quash it or club it with the earlier FIR.

---

---

Issues: Whether the second FIR was liable to be quashed or clubbed with the earlier FIR on the ground that both arose from the same transaction and amounted to impermissible multiple FIRs.

Analysis: The challenge turned on the settled rule that a second FIR in respect of the same cognizable offence or the same transaction is impermissible, but that rule applies only where the later information discloses the same occurrence, same set of facts, or a continuation of the earlier case. On the facts, the allegations in the two FIRs were found to be materially distinct: the alleged transactions, bank accounts, forged documents, involved entities, participants, and modus operandi were different, and the later investigation concerned separate instances of illegal forex remittance requiring further evidence. The Court also applied the principle that quashing of criminal proceedings is to be exercised sparingly and that, at the threshold, the Court should not undertake a mini trial or assess the truthfulness of the allegations.

Conclusion: The second FIR was held to be maintainable and was not quashed. Clubbing of the two FIRs was also declined, as they were found to relate to distinct offences and distinct transactions.

---