The Allahabad High Court has refused to quash a second FIR in a case where the two FIRs referred to a common background of financial transactions between the parties, but their scope, subject matter, and period of commission were manifestly distinct. The High Court held that the bar against a second FIR operates only where both relate to the same incident or transaction.

The writ petition before the High Court was instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution by the petitioners seeking the quashing of the FIR registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the IPC. The petitioners had also prayed for a stay of their arrest in connection with the said FIR during the pendency of the proceeding before the High Court.

The Division Bench of Justice Lakshmi Kant Shukla and Justice Chandra Dhari Singh held, “Therefore, while the two FIRs may refer to a common background of financial transactions between the parties, their scope, subject matter, and period of commission are manifestly distinct. The earlier FIR concerns inducement and cheating in respect of an investment and the present one concerns fabrication and use of false documents in judicial proceedings. The offences alleged in the latter, under Sections 467, 468, and 471 IPC, are independent and self-contained, and cannot be said to have been the subject matter of the earlier investigation.”

“The present FIR discloses new and distinct offences allegedly committed after registration of the first case. The bar against a second FIR operates only where both relate to the same incident or transaction. In this case, the test of sameness is not satisfied. Moreover, the present FIR was registered pursuant to the order of the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC after considering the material placed before him”, it added.

Factual Background

The FIR was lodged by the complainant alleging that the accused persons were running an organised group or syndicate engaged in cheating and forgery through online business channels. It was alleged that the said accused persons, acting in concert, induced the complainant’s brother to invest a sum of Rs 7,50,000 in their business venture by making false representations and deceitful promises. The transactions were stated to have taken place in the year 2019 under the guise of a business project relating to travel packages and health products being operated under the name and style of ‘QNet’.

It was further alleged in the FIR that after registration of an earlier case vide FIR bearing No. 38 of 2021 at the same police station on the complaint of the complainant’s brother, the accused persons, in order to shield themselves from prosecution in that case, fabricated and forged documents. Thereafter, the informant filed an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal (CrPC) before the Court concerned, seeking a direction for registration of an FIR. Acting upon the said application, the Court directed the concerned police station to register the case, in compliance with whereof the FIR was registered. It was in such circumstances that the Writ Petition came to be filed.

Arguments

The petitioners primarily submitted that the impugned FIR was a second FIR on identical facts and allegations, lodged with malafide intent after an inordinate delay of more than five years from the original transaction. It was contended that the earlier FIR No. 38/2021, lodged by the complainant’s brother at the same police station, had already been investigated, and no offence was found against them.

It was the case of the respondents’ case that the present FIR arose from independent acts of forgery and fabrication committed by the petitioners after registration of FIR No. 38/2021 thereby constituting a fresh cause of action.

Reasoning

Expounding on the law relating to the scope of interference by the High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Bench reaffirmed that the power of quashing an FIR or criminal proceeding must be exercised sparingly, with circumspection, and only in rare cases where the complaint or FIR does not disclose any cognizable offence or where continuation of the investigation would amount to an abuse of process of law.

Referring to the judgments of the Apex Court in T. T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala (2001) and Anju Chaudhary v. State of U.P. (2013), the Bench stated, “The consistent position that emerges from the authorities is that the test to determine the maintainability of a subsequent FIR is the “test of sameness”, namely, whether both FIRs relate to the same incident or are in respect of the same occurrence or form part of the same transaction. If the answer is in the affirmative, the second FIR would not be maintainable; however, if the allegations in the subsequent FIR discloses a distinct occurrence, separate in time, place, or nature of offence, or if they reveal new facts or a larger conspiracy, a second FIR is legally permissible.”

The Bench noted that the earlier FIR No. 38/2021, lodged by the complainant’s brother (Shubham Agnihotri), pertained to the alleged inducement and deception by the petitioners in persuading the complainant’s brother to invest money in a business scheme run under the banner of QNet. The gravamen of that case was cheating and criminal breach of trust relating to the investment transaction of the year 2019. The FIR in question, on the contrary, was founded on subsequent and distinct allegations of forgery, fabrication, and use of forged documents. The primary accusation was that after registration of the earlier FIR, the petitioners forged and fabricated documents and used them during judicial and investigative proceedings to mislead authorities and to secure undue advantage.

Considering that the offences alleged in the latter FIR were not the subject matter of the earlier investigation, the Bench found no ground to exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction to quash the FIR and thus dismissed the Petition.

Cause Title: Parul Budhraja v. State of U.P. (Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC:190339-DB)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocate Mohit Kumar Shukla

Respondent: Government Advocate, Advocate Kabeer Tiwari

Click here to read/download Order


Allahabad High CourtJustice Chandra Dhari SinghJustice Lakshmi Kant Shukla

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.