TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
CLUBBING OF FIRST INFORMATION REPORTS
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....LUBBING OF FIRST INFORMATION REPORTS<br>By: - DR.MARIAPPAN GOVINDARAJAN<br>Other Topics<br>Dated:- 12-8-2026<br>There cannot be a second FIR in respect of the same incident or occurrence or in respect of the incidents which form a part of the same transaction. If the subsequent FIR relates to a distinct occurrence or offence; is a counter-complaint; or reveals a larger conspiracy, the registration of the same is permissible. In T.T. Antony Versus State of Kerala and Ors. - 2001 (7) TMI 1322 - Supreme Court the Supreme Court observed under the scheme of the provisions of Sections 154, 155, 156, 157, 162, 169, 170 and 173 CrPC only the earliest or the first information in regard to the commission of a cognizable offence satisfies the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....requirements of Section 154 CrPC. There can be no second FIR and consequently there can be no fresh investigation on receipt of every subsequent information in respect of the same cognizable offence or the same occurrence or incident giving rise to one or more cognizable offences. On receipt of information about a cognizable offence or an incident giving rise to a cognizable offence or offences and on entering the FIR in the station house diary, the officer in charge of a police station has to investigate not merely the cognizable offence reported in the FIR but also other connected offences found to have been committed in the course of the same transaction or the same occurrence and file one or more reports as provided in Section 173 CrPC.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... In the view of Supreme Court, a case of fresh investigation based on the second or successive FIRs, not being a counter-case, filed in connection with the same or connected cognizable offence alleged to have been committed in the course of the same transaction and in respect of which pursuant to the first FIR either investigation is under way or final report under Section 173(2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate, may be a fit case for exercise of power under Section 482 CrPC or under Articles 226/ 227 of the Constitution. In AMIT KATYAL & ANR. Versus STATE OF HARYANA & ANR. - 2026 (5) TMI 1840 - Supreme Court, the Supreme Court analysed the application of the test of 'sameness' to find out whether both FIRs relate to the same inciden....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t and to the same occurrence, are in regard to incidents which are two or more parts of the same transaction or relate completely to two distinct occurrences. If the answer falls in the first category, the second FIR may be liable to be quashed. However, in case the contrary is proved, whether the version of the second FIR is different and they are in respect of two different incidents/crimes, the second FIR is permissible. whether transactions can be regarded as the same transaction would necessarily depend upon the particular facts of each case. The Bench noted that the general thought is that, where there is proximity of time or place or unity of purpose and design or continuity of action in respect of a series of acts, it may be possibl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e to infer that they form part of the same transaction. In STATE OF RAJASTHAN Versus SURENDRA SINGH RATHORE - 2025 (2) TMI 1987 - Supreme Court, the Supreme Court laid the regulations in regard to the issue second FIR as detailed below- • When the second FIR is counter-complaint or presents a rival version of a set of facts, in reference to which an earlier FIR already stands registered. • When the ambit of the two FIRs is different even though they may arise from the same set of circumstances. • When investigation and/or other avenues reveal the earlier FIR or set of facts to be part of a larger conspiracy. • When investigation and/or persons related to the incident bring to the light ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hitherto unknown facts or circumstances. • Where the incident is separate; offences are similar or different. In The State (NCT) of Delhi Versus Khimji Bhai Jadeja - 2026 (8) TMI 319 - Supreme Court , the Supreme Court laid down triple tests, though not to be applied cumulatively, to decide whether separate actions can be treated as part of the 'same transaction' - • unity of purpose and design; • proximity of time and place; and • continuity of action. We may see the meaning of 'distinct offence'. In 'Banwarilal Jhunjhunwala v. Union of India', the Supreme Court held that 'distinct' meant 'not identical' and two offences would be distinct if they are not, in any way, int....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er-related. It was further held that if there is some inter-relation, there would be no distinctness and it would depend upon the circumstances of the case in which the offences were committed whether there be separate charges for those offences or not. In RUTVIJ BHAGAT SINGH WAKHARE Versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. - 2026 (8) TMI 413 - Supreme Court, various FIRs have been lodged against the appellant by various States. The appellants filed the present appeal with the request to quash the same. Alternatively, the petitioner prayed the Supreme Court that the FIRs may be clubbed together and cause one investigation to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and conflicting investigations. The allegations, as emerging from these FIRs, p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ertain to incidents cyber fraud, wherein the complainants were contacted by unknown persons posing as police officials. The appellants were falsely informed that several money laundering activities had been carried out in their names. On the said basis the complainants were induced to transfer large sums of money to various bank accounts for verification and investigation. It is alleged that a part of the money, so transferred, was credited to Account No.50200085120507 maintained in the name of 'M/s Al Zeba Marinen Overseas', a proprietary concern of the petitioner. Though the appellant is not named as an accused in the subject FIRs, the aforesaid bank account belonging to his proprietary concern finds a mention therein. The appellants d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....enied the above allegations framed against him. He allowed his friend to operate the said account. However, the appellants filed cyber crime complaints against this misuse of his account. The petitioner field the present writ petition before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court relied on the case laws discussed as above and did not grant the prayer of the petitioner. The Supreme Court observed that each of the subject FIRs has been lodged by a different complainant who was allegedly induced to part with money on different occasions but with no live link or connectivity of transactions inter se different set of persons. The mere fact that a part of the defrauded amounts is alleged to have been transferred in the bank account of petitioner's ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....proprietary concern does not, by itself, establish that all the incidents form part of the same transaction. The Supreme Court did not accept the prayer of the petitioner that owing to his serious cardiac ailments and diabetic condition, it would be difficult for him to face proceedings in different States. Clubbing the subject FIRs may cause hardship to the complainants as they would be forced to run from pillar to post to pursue their criminal complaints. The Supreme Court held that such difficulty cannot be a ground to direct clubbing of FIRs which otherwise disclose commission of distinct offences. The Supreme Court observed that cyber frauds of the present nature are often executed through complex technological means involving multi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ple bank accounts, fictitious identities and digital networks operating across different jurisdictions. Investigation into such offences, as rightly contended by the learned counsel(s) for the respondent States, necessarily requires detailed forensic examination of electronic evidence, analysis of banking transactions and tracing of money trails so as to identify the people involved. Given that the investigating agencies are yet to ascertain the complete flow of funds and unravel the entire chain of events, a direction for a composite investigation may impede a fair and effective investigation. Several cyber frauds are now on the rise and the offence, considering its gravity and implications cannot be taken lightly. More so, when the victim....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of crime largely hailing from the rural areas, unaware and ignorant of the process and the mechanism adopted by the criminals are allured to overcome their poverty. The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner. The Supreme Court gave liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum to seek appropriate relief(s) as he may be entitled to in law and/or avail any other remedy as may be available in law, if so advised. =============<br> Scholarly articles for knowledge sharing by authors, experts, professionals ....