Criminal Procedure Code

Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash

(2004) 13 SCC 292

Facts

A violent dispute occurred between two opposing groups.
One side approached the police first and obtained registration of an FIR presenting its version of the occurrence.
Upkar Singh, representing the opposite side, later submitted a complaint alleging a materially different version.
His complaint claimed that persons named as victims or complainants in the first FIR were themselves responsible for criminal acts.
The police refused or failed to register the counter-complaint.
It was argued that T.T. Antony prohibited registration of any second FIR concerning the same occurrence.
The Supreme Court had to decide whether the rule against multiple FIRs also prevented the opposing party from filing a counter-case. ( )

Whether a counter-FIR containing the rival version of the same occurrence is barred by T.T. Antony.
Whether the first person to lodge an FIR can prevent investigation of allegations made against them by the opposite side.

T.T. Antony prohibits successive FIRs by the same complainant or side that merely improve, expand or repeat the original version of the same transaction.
It does not prohibit a genuine counter-complaint by the opposite party.
A counter-case may be registered where it presents:
a rival account;
different alleged aggressors;
different criminal acts;
or a claim of self-defence or retaliation.
If counter-FIRs were prohibited, the person reaching the police station first could:
portray themselves as the victim;
name the opposite party as accused;
and obtain immunity from investigation into their own conduct.
Both versions should ordinarily be investigated fairly.
Counter-cases arising from the same occurrence should, where possible, be tried by the same judge one after the other to avoid conflicting judgments.
BNSS Section 173 governs registration, while investigation proceeds under Sections 175 and 176. ()

The Court examined the purpose behind the rule in T.T. Antony.
That rule prevents police from repeatedly registering cases against the same person on improving versions supplied by the same source.
Upkar Singh’s complaint was fundamentally different.
He was not attempting to add another allegation against the persons already accused in the first FIR.
He alleged that the first informant’s side had itself committed offences during the confrontation.
The two complaints therefore represented opposing accounts of:
who initiated the violence;
who was the aggressor;
who suffered injuries;
and whether any act was committed in self-defence.
Such questions could not fairly be resolved by investigating only the first version.
The Court explained that the rule of “first information” concerns repeated reports from the same side.
It does not mean that the first informant acquires exclusive ownership over the criminal narrative.
The police were required to investigate the counter-version independently and impartially.
If evidence in both cases overlapped, that was not a reason to reject the second complaint.
Rather, it required careful coordination so that:
evidence was preserved;
witnesses were examined consistently;
and the trial court received both versions.
The Court also clarified that a later complaint falsely labelled as a counter-case may still be rejected if it merely duplicates the first case.
The substance, not the title, determines whether it is a genuine cross-version.

The Supreme Court held that a counter-FIR by the opposite side is legally maintainable.
T.T. Antony did not bar registration and investigation of Upkar Singh’s rival version.
The decision protects the right of each side to have its allegations independently investigated while maintaining the prohibition against repetitive FIRs from the same side. ( )