Allahabad High Court
BHARAT VERMAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 14 OTHERS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Dismissed on merits
Holding
The first FIR dated 18.07.2024 (Case Crime No. 612 of 2024) is declared the principal FIR and all subsequent FIRs are to be clubbed with it as statements under Section 161, thereby preventing multiplicity of proceedings.
Summary
The petitioner, Bharat Verma, sought a writ of mandamus directing that all FIRs filed for non‑payment of deposit maturity amounts be merged with the first FIR (Case Crime No. 612 of 2024) and that no further FIRs be registered against him. The petition argued that the multiple FIRs were identical in facts, constituted an abuse of process, and that the petitioner, being only an ordinary member of the cooperative society, could not be held liable. The State contended that the FIRs were filed by different complainants in different jurisdictions and therefore could not be clubbed. The Court examined the statutory scheme of Sections 154, 155, 156, 157, 161, 162, 169, 170, 173 of the CrPC and Sections 111, 318, 61(2), 352, 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, applying the Supreme Court’s “test of sameness” to determine whether the FIRs arose from a single transaction. Finding that the allegations, accused persons, and underlying conduct were identical, the Court held that the subsequent FIRs must be treated as statements under Section 161 and merged with the principal FIR. Consequently, the petition was disposed and the first FIR was declared the principal FIR for all further investigation and trial.
Issues considered
- The legality of clubbing multiple FIRs that allege the same offence and arise from the same transaction.
- Whether the High Court can issue a mandamus directing consolidation of FIRs and transfer of investigations under Article 226/Section 482 of the CrPC.
- Whether bail granted in the principal FIR extends to any subsequent FIRs filed against the petitioner.
- Whether the petitioner, as an ordinary member of the cooperative society, can be held vicariously liable for the alleged fraud.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 111, 318, 351(3), 352, 61(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 154, 155, 156, 157, 161, 162, 169, 170, 173, 482
Subjects
- FIR consolidation
- Section 154 CrPC
- Section 161 CrPC
- Section 482 CrPC
- Article 226
- Abuse of process
- Test of sameness
- Multiple FIRs
- Criminal procedure
- Bail extension
- Cooperative society fraud
Judgment
A.F.R.
Reserved on: 13.07.2026
Delivered on: 23.09.2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10787 of 2026
Bharat Verma
…..Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and 14 others
…..Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anurag Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 48
HON'BLE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.
HON'BLE TARUN SAXENA, J.
Per: Hon’ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.
1. The instant writ petition has been filed seeking following main
reliefs:-
“A. Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents that
All the subsequent FIRs Registered relating to non-payment
of Depositors' Maturity Amounts be clubbed
/Consolidated/Merged and proceeded with the FIRST F.I.R.
Case Crime No. 612 of 2024, under sections 111, 318, 61(2),
2
CRLP No. - 10787 of 2026
352 and 351 (3) of B.N.S. Police Station-Kotwali Lalitpur,
District-Lalitpur by treating the said FIR as the Principal FIR
to the extent that relates to petitioner;
B. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature
of mandaumus commanding, the respondents that no further
FIR containing similar allegations be registered against the
petitioner in the State of Uttar Pradesh and all subsequent
information/complaints containing similar allegations and/or
rising from common cause of action, relating to non-payment
of maturity proceeds be treated as statements under section
161 CrPC/180 BNSS in Principal F.I.R. Case Crime No. 612 of
2024, under sections 111, 318, 61(2), 352 and 351 (3) of
B.N.S. Police Station-Kotwali Lalitpur, District-Lalitpur and
accordingly be proceeded with to the extent that relates to
petitioner;
C. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature
of mandaumus commanding the respondents that in the
cases where investigation officer had, if already, filed police
report/Chalan under section. 173 CrPC/193 B.N.S.S, 2023
before the concerned Court and consequently if the
concerned court has taken cognizance thereof, the said FIRs
and criminal cases would also stand transferred and
merged/clubbed along with the principal FIR referred herein
above and be tried by the Court having jurisdiction to try the
case concerning the principal FIR, as per the procedure
established by Law to the extent that relates to petitioner;
3
CRLP No. - 10787 of 2026
D. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature
of mandaumus commanding the respondents that since
Petitioner has been granted bail in connection with the
Principal FIR, the bail so granted must enure in favour of
Petitioner (be applicable in all Subsequent F.I.Rs.;
E. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature
of mandaumus commanding the respondents not to arrest
the Petitioner in F.I.R'S in the District Lalitpur which relates to
similar set of facts and allegations pertaining to the High
deposits made in the society LUCC (Loni Urban Multi-State
Credit & Thrift Co-operative Society) that have been lodged
against the petitioner or any other F.I.R. that come to the
knowledge of this Hon'ble court or the petitioner during the
pendency of the present writ petition as well as future F.I.R's;
F. Issue any other writ, order or direction in favor of the
Petitioner, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in
the facts and circumstances of the present case.”
Factual Matrix
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant,
namely, Yashwant Singh has lodged an F.I.R. on 18.07.2024
against Jagat Singh @ Tansu, Mukesh Kumar Jain and Neeraj Jain
@ Banti Jain for the offence under Sections 111, 318, 61(2), 352
and 351(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 alleging inter-alia
that he had filed a written complaint addressed to the
4
CRLP No. - 10787 of 2026
Superintendent of Police, District Lalitpur, stating, inter-alia, that
they are residents of Village Satlinga, Police Station Mahrauni,
District Lalitpur. Their agricultural land had been acquired for the
Bharat Dam Project, for which they had received compensation. It
was further stated that Jagat Singh alias Tansu, Mukesh Kumar
Jain and Neeraj Jain alias Bunty Jain approached them and
represented themselves to be agents of LUCC Company. They
assured them that if they opened an account/ID with the said
company and deposit money therein, the amount so deposited
would be doubled after a period of five years. Believing the
representations made by the aforesaid persons, the informant and
others deposited the following amounts with the company
through its agents on 26.03.2019:
(i) ID No. 7605427 — ₹1,00,000/- deposited by Smt. Harkunwar,
wife of Roop Singh;
(ii) ID No. 7662311 — ₹50,000/- deposited by Sukhsingh, son of
Harlal;
(iii) ID No. 7662331 — ₹25,000/- deposited by Yashwant Singh,
son of Kailash Singh; and
(iv) ID No. 7662321 — ₹25,000/- deposited by Jagat Singh, son
of Kailash Singh.
5
CRLP No. - 10787 of 2026
3. The aforesaid agents, namely, Jagat Singh alias Tansu, Mukesh
Kumar Jain, and Neeraj Jain alias Bunty Jain, reiterated that upon
completion of five years, the amount deposited by the informants
would be returned to them in double. The maturity period of the
aforesaid IDs expired on 26.03.2024. Thereafter, when the
informant and others demanded repayment of the amounts
deposited by them with the said company, the aforesaid agents
continued to evade the matter and assured them that the entire
amount would be returned after some time. However, despite
repeated demands, they continued to put off them on one pretext
or another. On 15.07.2024 at about 10:00 a.m., the informant
went to the residence of Jagat Singh alias Tansu. Mukesh Jain and
Neeraj Jain were also present. When he demanded repayment of
the amount deposited by him with the company, the aforesaid
persons abused him and threatened him with dire consequences.
In the impugned F.I.R., it is further alleged that the accused
persons have committed fraud and by preparing forged and
fabricated documents have also misappropriated their money, and
threatened that if any legal action was initiated against them,
they would kill him. Accordingly, he made a request to the
Superintendent of Police, District Lalitpur, to direct registration of
the case and to take appropriate legal action against the accused
persons. They further prayed that the money allegedly
6
CRLP No. - 10787 of 2026
misappropriated be recovered from the said company and its
agents and be refunded to them.
4. After registration of aforesaid principal F.I.R., several other
F.I.R.s containing the same allegations, arising out of same
grievance, facts, and cause of action, have also been lodged. The
comparative chart of the F.I.R. is placed below for ready
reference:-
Sl. F.I.R. F.I.R. Date Police Offences Accused Persons
No. Number Station/
District
1. 612 of 18.07.2024 Kotwali Under Section- 1. Jagat Singh
2024 Lalitpur/ Alias Tansu
111, 318, 61(2),
Lalitpur
352, 351(3) of BNS, 2. Mukesh Kumar
Jain
2023
3. Neeraj Jain alias
Bantee Jain
2. 647 of 26.07.2024 Kotwali under Sections- 111, 1. Maan Singh
2024 Lalitpur/ 336(3), 318, 340(2),
2. Ashok Kumar
Lalitpur 352, 351(2) of
Ahirwar
B.N.S., 2023
3. Ravi Tiwari
4. Alok Jain
5. Hardev Patel
3. 1086 of 04.08.2024 Kotwali under Sections- 111, 1.Sateesh Chandra
2024 Lalitpur/ 318, 338, 336(3), Jain Devran Wale
Lalitpur 340(2), 61(2), 352,
2. Aalok Jain
351 (3) of B.N.S.,
2023 3. Ravi Tiwari
4. urendr a Kumar
7
CRLP No. - 10787 of 2026
Singh
5. Shaili Bajaj
6.CMD of LUCC
Sameer Agrawal
7. Fund Managner
R.K. Shetti
8. Member of Core
Committee Vinod
Tiwari
9. Rahul Tiwari
10. Shabab Rizvi
11. Hardev Patel
12. Mahesh Prasad
Rajak
4. 686 of 06.08.2024 Kotwali under Sections- 111, Ravi Tiwari and 4
2024 Lalitpur/ 336(3), 340(2), others
Lalitpur 61(2), 318 of B.N.S.,
2023
5. 687 of 06.08.2024 Kotwali under Sections- 111, 1. Aalok Jain
2024 Lalitpur/ 336(3), 340(2),
2. Ravi Tiwari
Lalitpur 61(2), 318 of B.N.S.,
2023 3. Vinod Tiwari
4. Rahul Tiwari
5. Ram Naresh
Sahu
6. Samir Agarwal
6. 688 of 06.08.2024 Kotwali under Sections- 111, 1. Ashok Jain
2024 Lalitpur/ 336(3), 340(2),
2. Ravi Tiwari
Lalitpur 61(2), 318 of B.N.S.,
2023 3. Vinod Tiwari
4. Rahul Tiwari
5. Ram Naresh
8
CRLP No. - 10787 of 2026
Sahu
6. Ashok Kumar
Ahirwar
7. Hardev patel
8. Surendra Pal
Singh
7. 204 of 06.08.2024 Jakhaura/ under Sections- 111, Vinod Shrivastava
2024 61(2), 318(4), 338,
Lalitpur
316(2), 336(3),
340(2), 351(2) of
B.N.S., 2023
8. 236 of 06.08.2024 Mahrauni/ under Sections- 111, 1. Vivek Chaturvedi
2024 61(2), 318(4),
Lalitpur 2. Jagat Singh alias
316(2), 336(3),
Tansu
340(2), 351(2) of
B.N.S., 2023 3. Mukesh Kumar
Jain
4. Neeraj Jain alias
Bantee
5. Alok Jain
9. 261 of 06.08.2024 Talbehat under Sections – 1. Manvendra
2024 111, 61(2), 318(4), Dwivedi & 25
336(3), 340(2), others
351(2) of B.N.S.,
2023
10. 231 of 19.10.2024 Jakhlaun Under Sections- 34, 1. Smt. Ladkuwar
2024 420, 406, 467, 468,
2. Manmohan
471 I.P.C.
3. Asharam
4. Alok Kumar Jain
5. Ravi Tiwari
6. One unknown
9
CRLP No. - 10787 of 2026
11. 301 of 07.11.2024 Jakaura under Sections- 111, Ashok Singh
2024 318(4), 336(3),
340(2), 351(2) of
BNS, 2023
12. 190 of 11.11.2024 Narahat/ under Sections- Smt. Guddi
2024 318(4), 338, 336(3),
Lalitpur
340(2), 352, 351(3)
of B.N.S., 2023
13. 270 of 10.03.2025 Kotwali under Sections- 111, Sateesh Chandra
2025 Lalitpur/ 61(2), 318(4), Jain & 25 others
336(3), 340(2),
Lalitpur
351(3), 352 of
B.N.S., 2023
14. 006 of 06.01.2026 Talbehat under Sections- 111, Deepak & 8-10
2026 61(2), 318, 336(3), others
340(2), 351(3), 352
of B.N.S., 2023
5. Hence, the instant writ petition has been filed along with the prayer
as stated in aforesaid paragraphs.
Submissions of Petitioner
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that
the allegations made in the FIRs are mala fide, vexatious and made
with ulterior motive, just to harass the petitioner. He submits that
perusal of all the above-said FIRs lodged against the petitioners, it can
be seen that the allegations are exactly the same, though the FIRs
have been filed by the different complainants/informants. He submits
that the above-said fact clearly shows that all the FIRs have been filed
10
CRLP No. - 10787 of 2026
with premeditated mind by the complainants in different police stations
only to harass the petitioner. He further submits that the filing of
multiple FIRs alleging the same allegations and offence in different
police stations or districts is a gross abuse of the process of law and
the same has been done only to harass the petitioner with ulterior
motive.
7. The case of all the informants is that they have invested the money
in the Company/Society i.e. LUCC and the money has been invested on
the request/inducement of the ordinary member of the Society. It is
submitted that all the persons who are making the complainants, were
also the members of the Society either they were ordinary members or
they were nominal/associate members. It is submitted that all the
complainants have deposited their money due to their own free will
and without any pressure or endorsement.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the
petitioner has no say working of the Society nor he was in the capacity
to manage the affairs of the Society. The affairs of the Society were
being managed by the duly elected Committee which constitutes of
Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Directors. The petitioner is only an
ordinary member and therefore, he could not be held vicariously liable
for the act of management/promoters of the Society. The petitioner is
at par with the complainant and he has been implicated in the present
case only for the reasons that some of the complainants have invested
their money with the Society after getting in touch with the petitioner.
11
CRLP No. - 10787 of 2026
9. Though, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that under the
provisions of Sections 154, 155, 156, 157, 162, 169, 170 and 173 of
the Cr.P.C. (Corresponding Sections 173, 174, 175, 176, 181, 189, 190
and 193 B.N.S.S.), only the earlier or the first information in regard to
the commission of a cognizable offence satisfies the requirements of
Section 154 Cr.P.C. Therefore, there cannot be a second F.I.R. and
consequently, there cannot be any fresh investigation on receipt of
every subsequent information in respect of the same cognizable
offence or the same occurrence or the same incidents giving rise to
one or more cognizable offences.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is trite law that
the right of the police to investigate into a cognizable offence is a
statutory right over which the Court does not possess any supervisory
jurisdiction under the Cr.P.C./B.N.S.S. The plenary power of the police
to investigate a cognizable offence is, however, not unlimited and the
same is subject to well-recognized limitations. He submits that where
the police transgresses its statutory power of investigation, the High
Court, under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or Article 226/227 of the Constitution
of India, can interdict the investigation to prevent abuse of the process
of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
11. It is submitted that subjecting an individual to numerous
proceedings arising in different police stations in different districts on
the basis of the same cause of action cannot be legally permissible. A
fresh investigation or a second FIR on the basis of the same or
12
CRLP No. - 10787 of 2026
connected cognizable offence would constitute an abuse of the
statutory power of investigation and a gross misuse of the State
machinery.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all the subsequent
FIRs registered relating to non-payment of deposits maturity amounts
be clubbed/consolidated, merged and proceeded with first FIR bearing
Case Crime No.612 of 2024, under Sections 111, 318, 61(2), 352 and
351(3) of B.N.S., Police Station – Kotwali Lalitpur, District Lalitpur by
treating the said FIR as the Principal FIR to the extent that relates to
the petitioner.
13. In support of his submissions, learned counsel has preferred the
following cases:-
(I) T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala & others1
(II) Babubhai v. State of Gujarat & others2
(III) Anju Chaudhary v. State of Uttar Pradesh & another3
(IV) Amit Katyal & another v. State of Haryana & another4
(V) Pranab Jyoti Barman v. Union of India & others5
14. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of
aforesaid arguments and submissions, the instant writ petition may be
allowed.
1 (2001) 6 SCC 181
2 (2010) 12 SCC 254
3 (2013) 6 SCC 384
4 2026 SCC OnLine SC 890
5 (2021) 4 GLR 43
13
CRLP No. - 10787 of 2026
Submissions of Respondents
15. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State vehemently opposed the
instant writ petition and submitted that the prayer made in the writ
petition cannot be allowed due to the sole fact that all the FIRs have
been lodged by the different complainants, residing in different places
arising out of different cause of actions. He submits that though the
allegations are of similar nature, the parties are different and the
investigation are yet to be properly started in the aforesaid FIRs.
Learned A.G.A. for the State vehemently submitted that the Supreme
Court in several cases under Article 32 and Article 142 of the
Constitution of India allowed the clubbing of multiple FIRs, however, in
the instant case, the same cannot be done due to the distinguishing
factors in the above-said FIRs. He submits that in each case, the facts
and circumstances are different and taking account of this fact a
straight jacket formula for clubbing all multiple FIRs cannot be
adopted. He submits that where occurrence occurred at different times
involving different persons, with no commonality of purpose and
thereafter, emerged from different circumstances, they cannot be
termed as forming part of the same transaction or offence. Therefore,
different FIRs cannot be clubbed together. He further submits that
clubbing all the FIRs will cause a lot of difficulties to the complainants,
as they reside in different places and would have to travel to the place
where the first information report has been lodged to participate in the
trial, if it proceeds. It is submitted that it is settled law that the
14
CRLP No. - 10787 of 2026
accused persons cannot be given the right to choose the place of his
trial.
16. In support of his submissions, learned A.G.A. has referred the
following cases:-
(I) Pramod Kumar Saxena v. Union of India & others6
(II) Anju Chaudhary v. State of Uttar Pradesh & another7
17. Learned A.G.A. for the State submitted and prayed that in view of
the above-said facts and submissions the instant writ petition is devoid
of merit and is to be dismissed.
Analysis and Conclusion
18. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. for the
State at length and perused the material on records.
19. On perusal of the contents of the F.I.R. and comparing the
same with the subsequent FIRs, it can be seen that the
allegations in the FIRs are exactly the same. Therefore, it is
apparent that the allegations made in the above-said FIRs are the
same in nature and the accused persons named in the FIR were
working on the behest of the same company or same person. The
issues regarding filing of the first FIR and subsequent filing of the
second FIR has been dealt with by the Supreme Court in the case
of T.T. Antony (supra), wherein the Supreme Court discussed in
6 (2008) 9 SCC 685
7 (2013) 6 SCC 384
15
CRLP No. - 10787 of 2026
details about the procedure of filing of first FIR and its
consequences. In this regard, the following observations of the
Supreme Court are extracted here-in-below:-
“18. An information given under sub-section (1) of Section 154
CrPC is commonly known as First Information Report (FIR) though
this term is not used in the Code. It is a very important document.
And as its nickname suggests, it is the earliest and the first
information of a cognizable offence recorded by an officer in
charge of a police station. It sets the criminal law in motion and
marks the commencement of the investigation which ends up with
the formation of opinion under Section 169 or 170 CrPC, as the
case may be, and forwarding of a police report under Section 173
CrPC. It is quite possible and it happens not infrequently that more
information than one are given to a police officer in charge of a
police station in respect of the same incident involving one or more
than one cognizable offences. In such a case he need not enter
every one of them in the station house diary and this is implied in
Section 154 CrPC. Apart from a vague information by a phone call
or a cryptic telegram, the information first entered in the station
house diary, kept for this purpose, by a police officer in charge of a
police station is the First Information Report -- FIR postulated by
Section 154 CrPC. All other informations made orally or in writing
after the commencement of the investigation into the cognizable
offence disclosed from the facts mentioned in the First Information
Report and entered in the station house diary by the police officer
or such other cognizable offences as may come to his notice
during the investigation, will be statements falling under Section
162 CrPC. No such information/statement can properly be treated
as an FIR and entered in the station house diary again, as it would
in effect be a second FIR and same cannot be in conformity with
the scheme of CrPC. Take a case where an FIR mentions
cognizable offence under Section 307 or 326 IPC and the
investigating agency learns during the investigation or receives
fresh information that the victim died; no fresh FIR under Section
302 IPC need be registered which will be irregular; in such a case
16
CRLP No. - 10787 of 2026
alteration of provision of law in the first FIR is the proper course to
adopt. Let us consider a different situation in which H, having killed
W, his wife, informs the police that she is killed by unknown person
or knowing that W is killed by his mother or sister, H owns up the
responsibility and during the investigation the truth is detected; it
does not require filing of fresh FIR against H-- the real offender --
who can be arraigned in the report under Section 173(2) or 173(8)
Cr.P.C., as the case may be. It is of course permissible for the
investigating officer to send up a report to the Magistrate
concerned even earlier that investigation is being directed against
the person suspected to be the accused.
19. The scheme of CrPC is that an officer in charge of a police
station has to commence investigation as provided in Section 156
or 157 CrPC on the basis of entry of the first information report, on
coming to know of the commission of a cognizable offence. On
completion of investigation and on the basis of the evidence
collected, he has to form an opinion under Section 169 or 170
CrPC, as the case may be, and forward his report to the Magistrate
concerned under Section 173(2) CrPC. However, even after filing
such a report, if he comes into possession of further information or
material, he need not register a fresh FIR; he is empowered to
make further investigation, normally with the leave of the court, and
where during further investigation he collects further evidence, oral
or documentary, he is obliged to forward the same with one or
more further reports; this is the import of sub-section (8) of Section
173 CrPC.
20. From the above discussion it follows that 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 requirements of
Section 154 CrPC. Thus 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
17
CRLP No. - 10787 of 2026
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."
20. In the above-said case of T.T. Antony (supra), the Supreme
Court has also discussed the right of police to investigate into
cognizable offence, which is statutory right over which the Court
does not possess any supervisory jurisdiction under the Cr.P.C.
However, it is mentioned that the plenary power of the police to
investigate a cognizable offence is not unlimited and the same is
subjected to certain well-recognized limitations. It is also
mentioned that where the police transgresses its statutory power
of investigation, the High Court under Article 226/227 of the
Constitution of India or Section 482 Cr.P.C. (528 B.N.S.S.) in an
appropriate case, can interdict the investigation to prevent the
abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of
justice. The Supreme Court in the above-said case, in respect of
the successive FIRs has observed as follows:-
“27. A just balance between the fundamental rights of the
citizens under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution and
the expansive power of the police to investigate a
cognizable offence has to be struck by the court. There
cannot be any controversy that sub-section (8) of Section
173 CrPC empowers the police to make further
investigation, obtain further evidence (both oral and
documentary) and forward a further report or reports to
the Magistrate. In Narang case it was, however,
observed that it would be appropriate to conduct further
investigation with the permission of the court. However,
18
CRLP No. - 10787 of 2026
the sweeping power of investigation does not warrant
subjecting a citizen each time to fresh investigation by
the W.P.(Crl.)/43/2022 Page 17 of 25 police in respect of
the same incident, giving rise to one or more cognizable
offences, consequent upon filing of successive FIRs
whether before or after filing the final report under
Section 173(2) CrPC. It would clearly be beyond the
purview of Sections 154 and 156 CrPC, nay, a case of
abuse of the statutory power of investigation in a given
case. In our view 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.”
21. From the above observations of the Supreme Court, it is
discernible that on the same facts and same allegations, two FIRs
cannot coexist. In that event, coexisting being clearly beyond the
purview of Sections 154 and 156 of CrPC. It is also discernible
from the aforesaid observation that fresh investigation based
upon 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, then the subsequent FIR may be an abuse of power
and in that event, the same shall be a fit case for exercise of
power under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution.
22. Following the same principles of law, the Supreme Court in
the case of Babubhai (supra) has observed as follows:-
19
CRLP No. - 10787 of 2026
“20. Thus, in view of the above, the law on the subject
emerges to the effect that an FIR under Section 154
CrPC is a very important document. It is the first
information of a cognizable offence recorded by the
officer in charge of the police station. It sets the W.P.
(Crl.)/43/2022 Page 18 of 25 machinery of criminal law
in motion and marks the commencement of the
investigation which ends with the formation of an
opinion under Section 169 or 170 CrPC, as the case may
be, and forwarding of a police report under Section 173
CrPC. Thus, it is quite possible that more than one piece
of information be given to the police officer in charge of
the police station in respect of the same incident
involving one or more than one cognizable offences. In
such a case he need not enter each piece of information
in the diary. All other information given orally or in
writing after the commencement of the investigation
into the facts mentioned in the first information report
will be statements falling under Section 162 CrPC.”
21. In such a case, the court has to examine the facts
and circumstances giving rise to both the FIRs and the
test of sameness is to be applied to find out whether
both the FIRs relate to the same incident in respect of
the same occurrence or are in regard to incidents which
are two or more parts of the same transaction. If the
answer is in affirmative, the second FIR is liable to be
quashed. However, in case the contrary is proved, where
the version in the second FIR is different and they are in
respect of two different incidents/ crimes, the second
FIR is permissible. In case in respect of the same
incident the accused in the first FIR comes forward with
a different version or counter claim, investigation on
both the FIRs has to be conducted.”
23. In the case of Anju Chaudhary (supra), the Supreme Court
reiterated that there cannot ordinarily be more than one FIR in
respect of the same incident, as the registration of second FIR for
20
CRLP No. - 10787 of 2026
the same offence would offend the principles of fair investigation
and may result in abuse of the investigation process. At the same
time, it was clarified that where the subsequent incident is distinct
or falls outside the ambit of the earlier FIR, registration of a
second FIR would not be barred. The relevant observations are
reproduced below:-
“14. On the plain construction of the language and scheme of
Sections 154, 156 and 190 of the Code, it cannot be
construed or suggested that there can be more than one FIR
about an occurrence. However, the opening words of Section
154 suggest that every information relating to commission of
a cognizable offence shall be reduced into writing by the
officer-in-charge of a police station. This implies that there
has to be the first information report about an incident which
constitutes a cognizable offence. The purpose of registering
an FIR is to set the machinery of criminal investigation into
motion, which culminates with filing of the police report in
terms of Section 173(2) of the Code. It will, thus, be
appropriate to follow the settled principle that there cannot
be two FIRs registered for the same offence. However, where
the incident is separate; offences are similar or different, or
even where the subsequent crime is of such magnitude that it
does not fall within the ambit and scope of the FIR recorded
first, then a second FIR could be registered. The most
important aspect is to examine the inbuilt safeguards
provided by the legislature in the very language of Section
154 of the Code. These safeguards can be safely deduced
from the principle akin to double jeopardy, rule of fair
investigation and further to prevent abuse of power by the
investigating authority of the police. Therefore, second FIR
for the same incident cannot be registered. Of course, the
investigating agency has no determinative right. It is only a
right to investigate in accordance with the provisions of the
Code. The filing of report upon completion of investigation,
either for cancellation or alleging commission of an offence, is
a matter which once filed before the court of competent
jurisdiction attains a kind of finality as far as police is
21
CRLP No. - 10787 of 2026
concerned, may be in a given case, subject to the right of
further investigation but wherever the investigation has been
completed and a person is found to be prima facie guilty of
committing an offence or otherwise, re-examination by the
investigating agency on its own should not be permitted
merely by registering another FIR with regard to the same
offence. If such protection is not given to a suspect, then
possibility of abuse of investigating powers by the police
cannot be ruled out. It is with this intention in mind that such
interpretation should be given to Section 154 of the Code, as
it would not only further the object of law but even that of
just and fair investigation. More so, in the backdrop of the
settled canons of criminal jurisprudence, reinvestigation or de
novo investigation is beyond the competence of not only the
investigating agency but even that of the learned Magistrate.
The courts have taken this view primarily for the reason that
it would be opposed to the scheme of the Code and more
particularly Section 167(2) of the Code. (Ref. Reeta Nag v.
State of W.B. [(2009) 9 SCC 129 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 1051]
and Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali [(2013) 5 SCC 762] of the same
date.)
xxx
25. The first information report is a very important document,
besides that it sets the machinery of criminal law in motion. It
is a very material document on which the entire case of the
prosecution is built. Upon registration of FIR, beginning of
investigation in a case, collection of evidence during
investigation and formation of the final opinion is the
sequence which results in filing of a report under Section 173
of the Code. The possibility that more than one piece of
information is given to the police officer in charge of a police
station, in respect of the same incident involving one or more
than one cognizable offences, cannot be ruled out. Other
materials and information given to or received otherwise by
the investigating officer would be statements covered under
Section 162 of the Code. The court in order to examine the
impact of one or more FIRs has to rationalise the facts and
circumstances of each case and then apply the test of
sameness to find out whether both FIRs relate to the same
incident and to the same occurrence, are in regard to
incidents which are two or more parts of the same
22
CRLP No. - 10787 of 2026
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, This is the view expressed by this Court in
the case of Babubhai v. State of Gujarat. This judgment
clearly spells out the distinction between two FIRs relating to
the same incident and two FIRs relating to different incident
or occurrences of the same incident etc.”
24. A conjoint reading of the aforesaid decisions leaves little room for
doubt that there is no absolute prohibition against the registration of a
second FIR. Equally, it is well-settled that a successive FIR cannot be
sustained where it relates to the same transaction or the same
incident. The guiding test is not only as to whether the alleged
offences are similar or whether they took place within the jurisdiction
of different police stations, but as to whether the subsequent FIR
pertains to a distinct incident or whether both FIRs form part of one
continuous or same transaction. It is this “test of sameness” which has
been applied to the facts of the present case.
25. In order to determine whether the impugned FIRs arise out of
single or continuous transaction, or relate to separate and distinct
incidents, it is first necessary to examine the allegations contained in
each of the FIRs. In the opinion of this Court, a comparative reading of
the allegations, the time and place of the alleged incidents, the nature
of the acts attributed to the petitioners, and the sequence in which the
events are stated to have unfolded would be necessary for applying
the “test of sameness” laid down by the Supreme Court.
23
CRLP No. - 10787 of 2026
26. We have perused the chart which is placed in the foregoing
paragraphs. We found the contents of the FIRs are same in nature.
The foundation of all the FIR is also one.
27. The Supreme Court in the case of Babubhai (supra) has held that
while examining the validity of successive FIRs, the Court is required to
apply the ‘test of sameness’ to determine whether the FIRs relate to
the same transaction or to distinct incidents.
28. Applying the said principles to the facts of the present case, and on
a comparative reading of the FIRs, this Court finds as follows:-
(i) Unity of incident – The foundation of all the FIRs is one
(ii) Continuity of action – The allegations in all the FIRs disclosed,
prima facie indicates continuity of the same incident then separate
incidents.
(iii) Proximity of time and place – The FIR relates to the incident.
(iv) Nature of allegations/offence – After perusal of FIR, we find that
the allegations leveled in all the FIRs are identical.
(v) Similar accused persons – After perusal of FIR, the allegations
made in FIRs are the same in nature and the accused persons
named in the FIR were working on the behest of the same
company or same person.
29. From the above-said factual matrix, it is evident that the distinct
features sought to be pointed out by the State are confined primarily
to the fact that the incident has took place at the different point of
time in the jurisdiction of different police stations and therefore, the
24
CRLP No. - 10787 of 2026
FIRs were registered at different police stations. In the opinion of this
Court, these circumstances, by themselves, do not alter the character
of the alleged incident in question, when the prosecution itself alleges
that all the FIRs arise from one continuing incident on the same day,
by the accused persons. In the considered opinion of this Court, the
facts of the present case satisfy the ‘test of sameness’ as there is unity
of purpose and design, proximity of time and place and continuity of
action.
30. In the case of State (NCT Delhi) Vs. Khimji Bhai Jadeja reported in
2026 SCC Online SC 19, while dealing with the issue of clubbing of
several FIRs into a single FIR, the Supreme Court has held as follows:-
"9. The issue, therefore, boils down to whether or not the
offenses allegedly committed against the 1,852 complainants
were part of the 'same transaction'. We may first note the
case law that has developed over time on the issue of
consolidation of FIRs. In S. Swamirathnam v. State of Madras,
a three-Judge Bench of this Court rejected the contention of
the accused that there was misjoinder of charges as several
conspiracies, distinct from each other, had been lumped
together and tried at one trial. The Bench observed that the
charges, as framed, disclosed one single conspiracy spread
over several years and the only object of the conspiracy was
to cheat members of the public. Per the Bench, the mere fact
that others joined in the conspiracy in the course of those
years or the fact that several incidents of cheating took place
pursuant to the conspiracy did not change the conspiracy or
split it up into several conspiracies. It was held that the
instances of cheating were in pursuance of one conspiracy
and were, therefore, parts of the same transaction.”
31. From the above-said observations, it is clear that every case will
have different facts and that has to be seen in terms of the principles
laid down by the Supreme Court as to whether that passes the test of
25
CRLP No. - 10787 of 2026
‘same transaction’ or ‘sameness’ as discussed above. In the instant
case as discussed above to ‘test of sameness’ has already been
passed.
32. In this connection, the case of Amit Katyal & another (supra) can
also be referred to, wherein the Supreme Court has observed that
permitting multiple FIRs and investigations in different jurisdictions on
the same set of facts would not only be contrary to the settled legal
position, but would also result in avoidable multiplicity of proceedings,
conflicting findings and serious prejudice to the petitioners. It was also
observed that consolidation of such FIRs at one place would subserve
the ends of justice by ensuring a coordinated, effective, and complete
investigation, which also safeguards the right of the petitioners to
mount an effective and meaningful defense in a single proceeding.
33. From the above discussions on the principles of law laid down by
the Supreme Court in various cases, it is discernible that in appropriate
cases, multiple FIRs can be allowed to be clubbed together and for
that purpose, the first FIR can be treated as the primary FIR and other
FIRs can be treated as statements under Section 161 of CrPC (180
BNSS). However, there is no straitjacket formula for doing so and the
allegations in the FIRs as well as other factors like modus operandi,
number of transactions, parties to the offense and whether the cause
of action is same, are relevant factors. The test of sameness and one
transaction are relevant criteria for treating the subsequent FIR as a
second FIR, which is not permitted under the law. Where several
26
CRLP No. - 10787 of 2026
offenses are part of the same transaction, the test of sameness has to
be applied to find out whether they are so related to one another on
the point of purpose or cause and effect, so as to result in one
continuous action.
34. In the instant case, the allegations made by different
complainants in all the FIRs are exactly the same. T he allegations
made in FIRs are the same in nature and the accused persons
named in the FIR were working on the behest of the same
company or same person, therefore, on perusal of all the FIRs
this Court does not find any difference or distinguishable fact in
above-said all the FIRs.
35. Taking into account the principles as discussed above in
foregoing paragraphs, this Court is of the considered opinion that
the allegations narrated in all the FIRs are same, though filed in
different places.
36. In view of the above-said facts, this Court is of the opinion
that allowing all the FIRs to independently go ahead will be an
abuse of the process of law. It will also be contrary to the settled
legal position, which will result in much avoidable multiplicity of
proceedings, conflicting findings and serious prejudice to the
petitioner in the instant case. Therefore, this Court is of the
considered view that the first FIR i.e. F.I.R. dated 18.07.2024,
27
CRLP No. - 10787 of 2026
Case Crime No. 612 of 2024, under Sections 111, 318, 61(2) 352
and 351 (3) of B.N.S., Police Station-Kotwali Lalitpur, District-
Lalitpur is directed to be treated as the Principal FIR and all
subsequent FIRs and further proceedings arising therefrom shall
be clubbed with the Principal FIR i.e. Case Crime No. 612 of 2024
and their contents shall be treated as statements under Section
161 of the CrPC (180 BNSS).
37. It is accordingly, directed that all subsequent FIRs shall be
forthwith transferred to the police station where the Principal FIR
is lodged i.e. Police Station - Kotwali Lalitpur, District-Lalitpur,
provided that charge-sheet has not been submitted before the
Court concerned, so that the investigation in the principal FIR can
proceed without any delay.
38. In case, cognizance has already been taken by any Court in
any subsequent FIR/criminal cases, shall also stand
transferred/clubbed with the principal FIR such cases shall be
tried by the Court having jurisdiction to try the principal FIR.
39. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant
writ petition stands disposed off.
40. Before parting with the judgment, I would like to express my
appreciation to my Research Associate, Mr. Md. Saif Ali Khan for
28
CRLP No. - 10787 of 2026
his thorough research and assistance to the Court in the instant
case.
(Tarun Saxena,J.) (Chandra Dhari Singh,J.)
September 23, 2026
Atul
Digitally signed by :-
ATUL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…