Court applies the “test of sameness”; observes that second FIR is not barred when allegations, accused and scope of investigation are different
The Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh has refused to quash a subsequent FIR registered in connection with alleged loan fraud, holding that registration of a second FIR is permissible when the allegations, nature of offences and scope of investigation are substantially different from the earlier FIR.
Justice Vikram Aggarwal, while dismissing a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of FIR No.154 dated 13.06.2015 registered at Police Station Kotwali Bathinda, observed that although certain facts may overlap between two FIRs, the crucial question is whether both cases relate to the same occurrence or whether the subsequent FIR reveals a different aspect of the matter involving additional allegations and a larger conspiracy.
The Court was dealing with a petition filed by Monika Garg and another person seeking quashing of FIR No.154 registered under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. The petitioners argued that the FIR was not maintainable as an earlier FIR arising out of the same transaction had already been registered against them.
The petitioners were represented by Mr. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate. The State of Punjab was represented by Mr. Ravinder Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, whereas Mr. Manuj Nagrath, Advocate appeared for the complainant/respondent.
Background of the Case
The dispute originated from a loan transaction involving Punjab and Sind Bank, Bathinda. Initially, FIR No.45 dated 01.05.2013 was registered at Police Station Cantt. Bathinda under Sections 306, 506 and 34 IPC on the complaint of Navninder Kaur, wife of Darshan Singh Dhillon.
According to the allegations mentioned in the first FIR, Monika Garg and her husband Bhagwan Dass had obtained a loan of approximately ₹1.45 crore from Punjab and Sind Bank. Darshan Singh Dhillon had stood as a guarantor for the loan and had mortgaged his property measuring about 295 square yards as security.
The complainant alleged that despite obtaining the loan, the borrowers failed to repay the installments, resulting in proceedings against the mortgaged property. It was alleged that due to harassment and pressure arising from the financial liability, Darshan Singh Dhillon committed suicide.
During investigation of the first FIR, additional allegations regarding cheating and financial transactions emerged. A DDR was recorded adding Section 420 IPC, alleging that the accused persons had obtained loans and failed to repay them.
Conviction in Earlier FIR
After completion of investigation in FIR No.45, the matter proceeded to trial. The trial court, through judgment dated 07.04.2025, convicted Monika Garg, Bhagwan Dass and Himmat Singh under Sections 306 read with Section 34 IPC, along with Sections 420 and 506 IPC.
The accused persons were sentenced to imprisonment under the respective provisions, with the sentences directed to run concurrently.
However, subsequently FIR No.154 was registered alleging a broader financial conspiracy involving not only the borrowers but also certain bank officials and other persons.
The petitioners approached the High Court claiming that the second FIR was based on the same allegations and amounted to an abuse of the process of law.
Petitioners’ Argument: Second FIR Not Permissible
The main argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners was that once FIR No.45 had already been registered and investigation had taken place, the police could not register another FIR concerning the same transaction.
Relying upon judgments including T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. CBI and other precedents, counsel for the petitioners argued that multiple FIRs regarding the same occurrence are not legally permissible.
The petitioners contended that the allegations in both FIRs arose from the same loan transaction involving the same parties and, therefore, any additional material should have been incorporated through further investigation in the original FIR rather than registration of a fresh FIR.
State and Complainant Oppose Quashing
Opposing the petition, the State and complainant argued that the two FIRs were based on different allegations and had different investigative scopes.
It was submitted that FIR No.45 primarily concerned the alleged abetment of suicide of Darshan Singh Dhillon, whereas FIR No.154 related to alleged cheating, fraudulent loan transactions, involvement of additional accused persons and irregularities in sanction and utilisation of loans.
The State relied upon various judgments of the Supreme Court to contend that a second FIR is permissible where the allegations are distinct or where subsequent investigation reveals a larger conspiracy.
High Court Examines Law on Second FIR
The High Court examined the settled legal position regarding registration of a second FIR.
The Court referred to the landmark judgment of the Supreme Court in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, wherein the Supreme Court held that ordinarily there cannot be a second FIR relating to the same incident and occurrence.
However, the Court also noted that the law has evolved and subsequent judgments have clarified that the registration of another FIR is not completely prohibited in every situation.
The important consideration is whether the second FIR relates to the same occurrence or whether it concerns a different incident, different allegations or a wider conspiracy.
The High Court observed that the “test of sameness” has to be applied in each case. Merely because certain facts overlap between two FIRs does not automatically mean that the second FIR is illegal.
Difference Between Both FIRs Considered by Court
While examining the facts of the present case, Justice Vikram Aggarwal found a clear distinction between the nature of allegations in both FIRs.
The Court observed that FIR No.45 mainly concerned allegations relating to the suicide of Darshan Singh Dhillon and alleged harassment caused due to non-payment of loan.
On the other hand, FIR No.154 involved wider allegations relating to alleged financial fraud, sanctioning of additional loan facilities, involvement of bank officials, valuation of properties, alleged misuse of banking procedures and a larger conspiracy involving multiple persons.
The Court noted that although there were some common facts, the allegations were not identical.
The High Court observed:
“If one closely examines both FIRs, it emerges that there are certain intertwined facts. However, both FIRs were not registered on the same set of facts.”
The Court held that FIR No.45 was primarily related to abetment of suicide, whereas FIR No.154 concerned alleged fraud and conspiracy involving additional accused persons.
Larger Conspiracy and Discovery of Additional Facts
The Court relied upon the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Surendra Singh Rathore, wherein the Supreme Court explained circumstances where a second FIR may be permissible.
The principles include situations where:
- The second FIR is a counter complaint or rival version;
- The scope of investigation is different;
- Investigation reveals a larger conspiracy;
- New facts or circumstances come to light;
- The incident involves separate offences or occurrences.
Applying these principles, the High Court held that FIR No.154 related to allegations beyond the scope of the first FIR.
Court Rejects Plea for Quashing
The High Court concluded that the second FIR could not be quashed merely because some allegations were common.
The Court observed that investigation into FIR No.154 related to facts forming part of a larger conspiracy and that stopping the investigation at this stage would not be justified.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and refused to interfere with the FIR.
Significance of the Judgment
The judgment reiterates an important principle regarding criminal investigations — while law does not permit repeated FIRs for the same offence and occurrence, it also does not prevent investigation into separate allegations that emerge from the same background.
The decision highlights that courts must carefully examine the nature of allegations instead of applying a mechanical approach merely because two FIRs contain some common facts.
The ruling also reinforces that investigation agencies can proceed with a subsequent FIR where new facts, additional accused persons or a larger criminal conspiracy are revealed.
However, the judgment also maintains the safeguard that multiple FIRs cannot be used as a method of harassment or repeated investigation into the exact same allegations.
Conclusion
The Punjab and Haryana High Court’s decision provides clarity on the circumstances in which a second FIR can legally survive. The Court balanced two competing principles — protection against multiple investigations for the same offence and the need to allow investigation into wider criminal conspiracies.
By applying the test of sameness, the Court concluded that FIR No.154 was not merely a repetition of the earlier FIR but concerned separate allegations involving alleged financial fraud and additional accused persons.
The decision serves as an important reminder that the legality of a second FIR depends upon the substance of allegations, scope of investigation and facts discovered during proceedings, rather than merely the existence of an earlier criminal case.