Second FIR Maintainable When It Uncovers Wider Conspiracy; 'Test Of Sameness' Is Decisive: J&K&L High Court
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that a second FIR is not barred in law where it relates to a distinct and wider conspiracy, even if it is connected to an earlier incident, reiterating that the governing principle is the “test of sameness.”
The Court was hearing petitions challenging an order of the trial court framing charges in a case arising out of an FIR, where one of the principal grounds raised was that the FIR was impermissible as a second FIR in view of an earlier FIR registered in relation to a connected transaction.
A Bench of Justice Sanjay Parihar, while addressing the rival contentions, observed: “The argument that FIR… is barred as a second FIR in view of the law laid down in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, (2001), does not impress this Court, … the prohibition against multiple FIRs applies only where the subsequent FIR relates to the same incident or occurrence forming the subject matter of the earlier FIR, 'The decisive test is the test of sameness”.
“The second FIR cannot be said to be legally impermissible, … Rather, it falls within the permissible category where subsequent investigation reveals a wider conspiracy, justifying independent registration within territorial jurisdiction”, the Bench Added.
The case arose from allegations of black-marketing of kerosene oil under the public distribution system, involving the use of forged allotment orders. An earlier FIR had been registered concerning a specific incident of excess kerosene stock traced to a particular allotment order.
During the investigation of that case, it was revealed that the allotment order in question was suspected to be fake, and that similar fake allotment orders were being used in the market. This led to registration of a larger racket involving the preparation and circulation of forged allotment orders.
The petitioners, who were officials in the CAPD Department, were arrayed as accused in the second FIR on allegations of connivance with private persons in facilitating the use of forged allotment orders. They challenged the order framing charges, inter alia, on the ground that the second FIR was barred in law as it related to the same transaction already covered by the earlier FIR.
At the outset, the High Court reiterated the settled principles governing interference at the stage of framing of the charge. It held that the Court is not required to conduct a meticulous evaluation of evidence, but only to examine whether the material on record discloses a prima facie case or raises a grave suspicion.
Referring to precedents including State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh (1977) and Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal (1979), the Court observed that even a strong suspicion founded on material is sufficient for framing a charge.
The Court noted that the investigation had revealed the existence of multiple forged allotment orders and their circulation over a period of time. It observed that the seizure of numerous such documents and the circumstances surrounding their use prima facie indicated a systematic modus operandi rather than an isolated instance.
It further noted that statements of witnesses suggested that departmental officials had verified certain allotment orders as genuine, which facilitated the release of kerosene oil. At this stage, such material was sufficient to raise a grave suspicion requiring trial.
The Court emphasised that offences involving conspiracy are often proved through circumstantial evidence, and direct evidence is rarely available. It was observed that the allegations of a broader conspiracy involving private individuals and departmental officials could not be said to be inherently implausible at the threshold stage.
Addressing the contention that the implication was based on statements of the co-accused, the Court acknowledged that such statements are not substantive evidence. However, it held that the prosecution's case was not based solely on such statements and that additional material existed to support the allegations.
It reiterated that issues relating to admissibility and probative value of evidence are matters for trial and cannot be conclusively determined at the stage of framing a charge.
Addressing the contention that the filing of a subsequent FIR was barred, the Court examined the law laid down in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala (2001) and subsequent decisions. It held that the prohibition against multiple FIRs is not absolute and applies only where both FIRs relate to the same incident or occurrence.
The Court observed: “In the case at hand, FIR No. 91/2006 pertains to a specific incident of black-marketing based on a particular allotment order, whereas FIR No. 31/2006 pertains to a larger conspiracy involving preparation and circulation of multiple forged allotment orders, … the two FIRs, though connected, operate in distinct spheres of criminality”.
Applying this test, the Court distinguished the two FIRs. It held that while the earlier FIR related to a specific instance of black-marketing based on a particular allotment order, the subsequent FIR related to a broader conspiracy involving the preparation and circulation of multiple forged allotment orders.
The Court relied on the distinction drawn in Babubhai v. State of Gujarat (2010) between the “same transaction” and a “distinct conspiracy.” It held that even if two FIRs are connected, they may still be legally sustainable if they operate in different spheres of criminality.
The Court also rejected reliance on departmental circulars and other defence material, holding that such contentions may be relevant at trial but cannot be examined in depth at the stage of charge, in light of the principle laid down in State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi (2005).
The High Court held that the second FIR was not barred in law and that the material on record disclosed a prima facie case raising grave suspicion against the petitioners. Accordingly, the petitions were dismissed, and the trial court was directed to proceed with the trial in accordance with the law.
Case Title: Kali Dass & Anr. v. State of J&K
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL)
Appearances
Senior Advocate O. P. Thakur appeared for the petitioners, while Deputy Advocate General P. D. Singh appeared for the State.