Introduction
The T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala judgment established the fundamental principle that a second FIR regarding the same incident is generally impermissible. However, jurisprudential evolution has carved out significant exceptions where second FIRs for different offences connected to the same incident may be maintainable. This report examines these exceptions through recent judicial interpretations.
The T.T. Antony Principle: General Prohibition Against Second FIRs
The Supreme Court in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala (2001) established that there cannot generally be a second FIR in respect of the same cognizable offense or incident. The Court emphasized that permitting multiple FIRs on the same incident would subject citizens to harassment and potentially violate fundamental rights under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution.
The baseline principle from T.T. Antony states:
“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… However, the sweeping power of investigation does not warrant subjecting a citizen each time to fresh investigation by the police in respect of the same incident, giving rise to one or more cognizable offences.”
Evolving Jurisprudence: Exceptions to the T.T. Antony Rule
Recent judicial developments have clarified that the T.T. Antony prohibition is not absolute. The Supreme Court has identified specific scenarios where second FIRs may be maintainable despite being connected to the same incident.
Exceptions Permitting Second FIRs
In a recent judgment dated February 19, 2025, the Supreme Court consolidated the jurisprudence on this issue, identifying five principal scenarios where a second FIR may be permissible:
- Counter-complaints presenting rival versions: When the second FIR presents an alternative version of the same set of facts.
- Different ambit despite same circumstances: When “the ambit of the two FIRs is different even though they may arise from the same set of circumstances”.
- Discovery of larger conspiracy: When investigation reveals the facts in the earlier FIR to be part of a broader conspiracy.
- Previously unknown facts emerge: When investigation or persons related to the incident bring to light previously unknown facts or circumstances.
- Separate incident or different offences: Where the incident is separate, or offences are similar or different.
Second FIRs for Different Offences Under Different Acts
The exception most relevant to our query is when a second FIR involves a different offence under a different act, despite being connected to the same incident. This position finds strong judicial support.
The Nirmal Singh Kahlon Precedent
In Nirmal Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab, the Court held:
“The second FIR, in our opinion, would be maintainable not only because there were different versions but when new discovery is made on factual foundations… If the police authorities did not make a fair investigation and left out conspiracy aspect of the matter from the purview of its investigation, in our opinion, as and when the same surfaced, it was open to the State and/or the High Court to direct investigation in respect of an offence which is distinct and separate from the one for which the FIR had already been lodged.”
This establishes that when a different or distinct offense is discovered, particularly under a different legal framework, a second FIR becomes maintainable.
Clarification in Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash
In Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash, the Supreme Court further clarified the scope of T.T. Antony’s application:
“Be that as it may, if the law laid down by this Court in T.T. Antony’s case is to be accepted as holding a second complaint in regard to the same incident filed as a counter complaint… such conclusion would lead to serious consequences… This cannot be the purport of the Code.”
The Court emphasized that T.T. Antony should not be interpreted to prevent legitimate complaints arising from the same incident but framed under different legal provisions.
Practical Application by Courts: Assessing the Validity of Second FIRs
When courts encounter second FIRs involving different offences under different acts, they typically apply a two-pronged test:
- Test of Legal Distinctness: Whether the offence in the second FIR is legally distinct from the one in the first FIR.
- Test of Factual Discovery: Whether new facts or circumstances have been discovered that justify a separate investigation under different legal provisions.
If both conditions are satisfied, courts generally uphold the maintainability of the second FIR despite the T.T. Antony principle.
Conclusion
While the T.T. Antony judgment established the general prohibition against second FIRs for the same incident, this principle is inapplicable when the second FIR involves a different offence under a different act. This exception recognizes the practical realities of criminal investigation, where initial complaints may not capture the full legal dimensions of complex incidents.
The evolving jurisprudence demonstrates the courts’ nuanced approach to balancing the protection of citizens against harassment through multiple investigations with the equally important public interest in ensuring that all aspects of criminal conduct are properly investigated and prosecuted under appropriate laws. When different offences under different acts emerge from the same incident, a second FIR is maintainable as a legitimate exception to the T.T. Antony rule.
Article by : Aditya bhatt
Associate: Bhatt and Joshi Associates
