Criminal Procedure Code

T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala

(2001) 6 SCC 181

Facts

A minister’s visit to Kuthuparamba in Kerala led to political protests, violence and police firing on 25 November 1994.
Several persons were killed and injured.
FIRs were registered soon after the occurrence, and investigation commenced.
A commission of inquiry later examined the incident and made findings concerning responsibility for the police firing.
On the basis of the commission’s report and a subsequent direction from a senior police officer, another FIR was registered concerning the same events.
This later FIR named additional persons and proposed a fresh investigation into substantially the same occurrence.
T.T. Antony challenged the later FIR as an impermissible second FIR. ( )

Whether more than one FIR can be registered in respect of the same occurrence or transaction.
Whether later information regarding the same incident must be investigated through the original FIR.

Section 154 CrPC contemplates the first information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence.
Once an FIR has been registered and investigation begins, every later piece of information concerning the same occurrence ordinarily becomes part of that investigation.
It may be:
recorded as a witness statement;
examined as further information;
or investigated under Section 173(8).
A fresh FIR cannot ordinarily be registered by the same side concerning:
the same incident;
the same transaction;
the same essential allegations; and
the same spectrum of offences.
The test is whether the later report concerns the same transaction, not merely whether the wording or list of accused is different.
The police may conduct further investigation and file supplementary reports, but cannot repeatedly restart the criminal process through successive FIRs.
The rule protects a person from:
repeated investigations;
multiple arrests;
contradictory police proceedings; and
abuse of investigative power.
Under BNSS, FIR registration is governed by Section 173 and further investigation by Section 193(9). ()

The Court compared the earlier FIRs with the later FIR.
All of them arose from:
the same ministerial visit;
the same protests;
the same police action;
the same firing;
and the same deaths and injuries.
The later commission report did not create a new occurrence.
It merely supplied additional material and a different assessment of responsibility for the existing occurrence.
That information could lawfully support:
further investigation;
examination of additional accused;
collection of new evidence; and
a supplementary police report.
It could not justify registration of an entirely new FIR.
The Court emphasised that an FIR is not expected to contain the entire prosecution case.
Its purpose is to set the investigative process in motion.
If every new witness, document or official conclusion permitted a fresh FIR, one criminal transaction could produce unlimited investigations.
The State argued that the later allegations were more serious and identified persons not properly investigated earlier.
The Court answered that Section 173(8) was sufficient to deal with this situation.
A defective or incomplete investigation must be corrected by further investigation, not by erasing the earlier FIR and commencing a second proceeding.
However, the Court’s broad language was later clarified in Upkar Singh: a genuine counter-version filed by the opposite party is not prohibited.

The Supreme Court quashed the subsequent FIR and the fresh investigation based upon it.
It directed that any additional material regarding the Kuthuparamba occurrence be dealt with in the original investigation through lawful further investigation.
The case laid down the principal rule against a second FIR relating to the same transaction. ( )