TWO FIRS

K O N I N A M A N D A L , A S S I S TA N T P R O F E S S O R , J G L S
Can there be more than one FIR?
T T Antony V. State of Kerala and Others

In this case 2 incidents occurred on the very same day consequent to a decision taken by a
Minister to inaugurate the function of an evening branch of a co-operative bank which was
opposed by members of a political group and in that process the 1st incident took place in the
proximity of the town hall at a place called Kutupuramba in Kerala and the second incident
took place in the vicinity of a Police Station at the same place. During the said 2 incidents, on
the orders of Executive Magistrate and Deputy Superintendent of Police, the police open fired
as a result of which 5 persons died and 6 persons were injured amongst the demonstrators.

In regard to the incident which took place near the town hall the police registered a Crime No.
353 of 1994 under Sections 143, 147, 148 332, 353 324 and 307 read with Section 149 IPC
along with some other offence while in regard to the incident which took place near the Police
Station a crime was registered under Crime No. 354 of 1994 under Sections
143, 147 148, 307 and 427 read with Section 149 IPC and other offences named therein. Both
the offences were registered on the date of incident itself.
During the pendency of the said cases the political Government of the State changed and
the new Government appointed a Commission of Inquiry and on the report of the
Commission, an investigation was directed to be conducted by the Deputy Inspector
General of Police concerned who after urgent personal investigation registered Crime
No. 268 of 1997 under Section 302 IPC against the Minister who was present at the time of
the incident, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, the Executive Magistrate who ordered the
firing and certain police constables.
The registration of the said crime came to be challenged before the High Court by way of a
writ petition and learned Single Judge of the High Court directed the case to be re-
investigated by CBI.
But in a writ appeal the Division Bench of the High Court quashed the FIR in Crime
No. 268 of 1997 as against the Additional Superintendent of Police but it directed a fresh
investigation by the State police headed by one of the three Senior Officers named in the
judgment instead of fresh investigation by CBI as directed by the learned Single Judge.
It is the above directions of the Division Bench that came to be challenged by way of
different appeals before this Hon'ble Court in the case of T.T. Antony (supra) and connected
cases. In this factual background this Hon'ble Court, as stated above, came to the conclusion
that a subsequent FIR on the same set of facts is not in conformity with the scheme of
the Code.
Issue
it was canvassed on behalf of the accused that the registration of
fresh information in respect of the very same incident as an FIR
under Section 154 of the Code was not valid and, therefore, all
steps taken pursuant thereto including investigation were illegal
and liable to be quashed
18. An information given under sub-section (1) of Section 154 CrPC is commonly known as
first information report (FIR) .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 (FIR Book) 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 information 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 the same cannot be in conformity
with the scheme of CrPC.
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
22…In the case on hand the second FIR is filed in respect of the same incident and on the same facts after about
three years
23. 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 CrPC. … In Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad [AIR 1945 PC 18 : 46 Cri
LJ 413] the Privy Council spelt out the power of the investigation of the police, as follows : (AIR p. 22)
“In India, as has been shown, there is a statutory right on the part of the police to investigate the circumstances of an
alleged cognizable crime without requiring any authority from the judicial authorities, and it would, as Their Lordships
think, be an unfortunate result if it should be held possible to interfere with those statutory rights by an exercise of the
inherent jurisdiction of the court.”
24. This plenary power of the police to investigate a cognizable offence is, however, not unlimited. It is subject to
certain well-recognised limitations. One of them, is pointed out by the Privy Council, thus : (AIR p. 22) “[I]f no
cognizable offence is disclosed, and still more if no offence of any kind is disclosed, the police would have no
authority to undertake an investigation….”
25. Where the police transgresses its statutory power of investigation the High Court under Section 482 CrPC or
Articles 226/227 of the Constitution and this Court in an appropriate case can interdict the investigation to prevent
abuse of the process of the court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice
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…..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, 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
countercase, 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
28….. in truth and substance the essence of the offence in Crimes Nos. 353 and 354 of 1994 is
the same as in Crime No. 268 of 1997 of Kuthuparamba Police Station. In our view, in sending
information in regard to the same incident, duly enclosing a copy of the report of the Commission
of Inquiry to the Inspector General of Police for appropriate action, the Additional Chief Secretary
adopted the right course of action.
Perhaps the endorsement of the Inspector General of Police for registration of a case misled the
subordinate police officers and the said letter with regard to the incident of 25-11-1994 at
Kuthuparamba was registered again under Section 154 CrPC which would be the second FIR
and, in our opinion, on the facts of this case, was irregular and a fresh investigation by the
investigating agency was unwarranted and illegal
On that date the investigations in the earlier cases (Crimes Nos. 353 and 354 of 1994) were
pending.
The correct course of action should have been to take note of the findings and the contents
of the report, streamline the investigation to ascertain the true and correct facts, collect the
evidence in support thereof, form an opinion under Sections 169 and 170 CrPC, as the case
may be, and forward the report/reports under Section 173(2) or Section 173(8) CrPC to the
Magistrate concerned.
The course adopted in this case, namely, the registration of the
information as the second FIR in regard to the same incident and
making a fresh investigation is not permissible under the scheme
of the provisions of CrPC as pointed out above, therefore, the
investigation undertaken and the report thereof cannot but be invalid.
We have, therefore, no option except to quash the same leaving it
open to the investigating agency to seek permission in Crime No. 353
or 354 of 1994 of the Magistrate to make further investigation,
forward further report or reports and thus proceed in accordance with
law
33. It is thus seen that the report and findings of the Commission of Inquiry are meant for
information of the Government.
Acceptance of the report of the Commission by the Government would only suggest that being
bound by the rule of law and having duty to act fairly, it has endorsed to act upon it. The duty of
the police — investigating agency of the State — is to act in accordance with the law of the land
34. Acting thus the investigating agency may with advantage make use of the report of the
Commission in its onerous task of investigation bearing in mind that it does not preclude the
investigating agency from forming a different opinion under Sections 169/170 CrPC if the
evidence obtained by it supports such a conclusion….
35. For the aforementioned reasons, the registration of the second FIR under Section 154 CrPC
on the basis of the letter of the Director General of Police as Crime No. 268 of 1997 of
Kuthuparamba Police Station is not valid and consequently the investigation made pursuant
thereto is of no legal consequence, they are accordingly quashed
We hasten to add that this does not preclude the investigating agency from seeking leave of the
Court in Crimes Nos. 353 and 354 of 1994 for making further investigations and filing a further
report or reports under Section 173(8) CrPC before the competent Magistrate in the said cases.
In this view of the matter, we are not inclined to interfere with the judgment of the High Court
under challenge insofar as it relates to quashing of Crime No. 268 of 1997 of Kuthuparamba Police
Station against the ASP (R.A. Chandrasekhar); in all other aspects the impugned judgment of the
High Court shall stand set aside.
36. On this conclusion, it is unnecessary to deal with the other aspects of the case including the
fourth point, namely, to direct investigation of the case by CBI.
Can there be a cross fir/counter complaint?
Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash [(2004) 13 SCC 292]
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 is prohibited under the
Code then, in our opinion, such conclusion would lead to serious consequences. This will be clear
from the hypothetical example given herein below i.e. if in regard to a crime committed by the real
accused he takes the first opportunity to lodge a false complaint and the same is registered by the
jurisdictional police then the aggrieved victim of such crime will be precluded from lodging a
complaint giving his version of the incident in question consequently he will be deprived of his
legitimated right to bring the real accused to books. This cannot be the purport of the Code.
We have already noticed that in the T.T. Antony's case this Court did not consider the legal right of
an aggrieved person to file counter claim, on the contrary from the observations found in the said
judgment it clearly indicates that filing a counter complaint is permissible.
This Court in the case of T.T. Antony vs. State of Kerala & Ors. has not excluded the registration
of a complaint in the nature of a counter case from the purview of the Code. In our opinion, this
Court in that case only held any further complaint by the same complainant or others against
the same accused, subsequent to the registration of a case, is prohibited under the Code because
an investigation in this regard would have already started and further complaint against the same
accused will amount an improvement on the facts mentioned in the original complaint, hence
will be prohibited under Section 162 of the Code.
Anju Chaudhary v. State of UP (2013) 6 SCC 384

ISSUE

A cardinal question of public importance and one that is likely to arise

more often than not in relation to the lodging of the First Information
Report (FIR) with the aid of Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure (for short, ‘the Code’) or otherwise independently within the
ambit of Section 154 of the Code is as to whether there can be more
than one FIR in relation to the same incident or different incidents
arising from the same occurrence.
On 16th November, 2007, one Parvez Parwaz, Respondent No.2, claiming himself to be a social activist filed an
application under Section 156(3) in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gorakhpur. According to this
complaint, one Mahant Aditya Nath Yogi, Member of Parliament and leader of an unregistered organization called the
Hindu Yuva Vahini had been spreading hatred amongst Hindus and Muslims for a number of years and has also been
causing fear amongst the Muslim community and harming them, demolishing the properties of Muslims and carrying
out other acts of harassment. On 27th January, 2007 when the complainant, Respondent No.2 herein, was
returning home from the Railway Station, Gorakhpur at about 8.00 p.m., Yogi Aditya Nath, Member of
Parliament, Dr. Radha Mohan Dass Aggarwal, Member of the Legislative Assembly, Dr. Y. D. Singh, Member of the
Legislative Council and Anju Chowdhary, Mayor of Gorakhpur, the Minister of State and BJP Leader Shiv Pratap
Shukla, other office bearers and thousands of activists of Hindu Yuva Vahini, BJP and Vyapar Mandal, Gorakhpur, as
well as various other persons whom the petitioner does not know by name but can recognise, were holding a meeting
as “Warning Meeting”.
Another very vital fact, that requires to be noticed at this stage itself, is that on 26th January, 2007, Rajkumar Agrahari,
a Hindu boy was murdered in Gorakhpur, which resulted in breaking out of communal violence in the city and
imposition of curfew under Section 144 of the Code. On 27th January, 2007 a condolence meeting for the murder of
Raj Kumar was organized which was attended by many persons including Anju Chaudhary, the Mayor of Gorakhpur
and Yogi Aditya Nath, Member of Parliament from that constituency. It appears from the record that the High Court
had also passed some orders in regard to the investigation of the case and finally the police had registered a case
under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’), and had even filed a charge sheet under Section
173 of the Code before the Court of competent jurisdiction against six unknown accused persons.
Apart from this incident and before the public meeting attended by above-stated Anju Chaudhary,
another incident took place at the shop of one Hazrat S/o Bismilla under Police Station Cantt. In
this incident, the shop of Hazarat was set on fire at about 6 p.m. on 27th January, 2007 causing
heavy damage to the same. In fact, as per the report lodged by him, he was working in that shop
and owner of the shop was one Md. Isa Ansari. According to him, some unknown persons,
claiming to be from Hindu Yuva Vahini, had set the shop on fire. He neither knew their names nor
their addresses. This report was sent by post and was, thus, received by the Police Station and
registered as FIR No.145 of 2007 on 3rd February, 2007. The police had registered a case against
unknown persons under Sections 147, 427, 436 and 506 IPC read with Section 23 of the U.P.
Gangsters and Activists Prevention Act and Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act.
The complaint application under Section 156 IPC was filed by Parvaz on 16th November, 2007,
nearly 10 months after the date of occurrence. This application, which was heard by the learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, was rejected vide order dated 29th July, 2008. The learned Magistrate
expressed the opinion that since Crime Case No.145 of 2007 had already been registered, as
noticed above, there was no propriety to register an FIR again.
HC on revision reversed the order and allowed investigation stating two different incidents.
 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.

It has to be examined on the merits of each case whether a subsequently registered

FIR is a second FIR about the same incident or offence or is based upon distinct and
different facts and whether its scope of inquiry is entirely different or not. It will not
be appropriate for the Court to lay down one straightjacket formula uniformly
applicable to all cases. This will always be a mixed question of law and facts
depending upon the merits of a given case.
 The Court in order to examine the impact of one or more FIRs has to rationalize 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 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.
To illustrate such a situation, one can give an example of the same group of people committing
theft in a similar manner in different localities falling under different jurisdictions. Even if the
incidents were committed in close proximity of time, there could be separate FIRs and institution
of even one stating that a number of thefts had been committed, would not debar the registration of
another FIR. Similarly, riots may break out because of the same event but in different areas and
between different people. The registration of a primary FIR which triggered the riots would not
debar registration of subsequent FIRs in different areas. However, to the contra, for the same
event and offences against the same people, there cannot be a second FIR.
Now, we should examine the facts of the present case in light of the principles stated supra. The complaint/application
under Section 156(3) filed by respondent No. 2 was founded on the condolence meeting which was attended by a large
number of persons including the persons named in the complaint. According to respondent No. 2, named persons had
given speeches which were communal, provoking and were creating disharmony between the communities, and
encouraging people to commit criminal offences rather than to follow the due process of law. The complaint of
respondent No. 2 did not relate to any event prior to the holding of the meeting and participation of the stated persons.
This complaint was of a general nature and related to various communal riots that occurred subsequent to and as a
result of the meeting. Thus, it related to a different case, grievance and alleged commission of offences at the time
and subsequent to the holding of the meeting.
The First Information Report 145/2007 lodged by Hazrat son of Bismillah related to burning of a shop prior to
holding of a meeting. He categorically stated that he did not know the persons or names of the perpetrators who
attacked the shop where he was working. This incident occurred at 6 p.m. as per the records while the meeting itself,
as per respondent No. 2 was held after 8 p.m., though on the same date. His report clearly states that when he was
going back to his house at about 8.30 p.m., he stopped at the place where the meeting was being held. The FIR
registered by Hazrat was against unknown persons and related to a particular event and commission of a
particular crime. There was no question of any provocation, conspiracy or attempt by the persons
premeditatedly committing the offences which they committed.
As per the FIR, it was an offence committed at random by some unknown persons. The registration of such FIR was
neither intended to be nor was it in fact in relation to a matter of larger investigation, or commission of offences, as
alleged by the respondent no.2.
Even the offences which are stated to have been committed, and for which the two FIRs were
registered in these respective cases were different and distinct.
In the complaint filed by Parvez Parwaz, which was registered as a FIR, names of the persons were
mentioned and a general investigation was called for, while FIR 145/2007 registered by Hazrat,
was against unknown persons for damage of his property, which was for a specific offence,
without any other complaint or allegation of any communal instigation or riot.
In other words, these were two different FIRs relatable to different occurrences, investigation of
one was no way dependent upon the other and they are neither inter-linked nor inter- dependent.
They were lodged by different persons in relation to occurrences which are alleged to have
occurred at different points of time against different people and for different offences. Requirement
of proof in both cases was completely distinct and different.
Thus, there was no similarity and the test of similarity would not be satisfied in the present
case. Thus, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that lodging of the subsequent FIR
was not a second FIR for the same occurrence as stated in FIR 145/2007, and thus, could be treated
as a First Information Report for all purposes including investigation in terms of the provisions of
the Code.
Yanub Sheikh v. State of WB (2013) 6 SCC 428
On 19th December, 1984, Yamin and Mohammed Sadak Ali, hired a pump set of one Humayun Kabir, for taking
water from the pond known as Baro Lauria Pukur for irrigating their respective lands
Yamin and others drew water from the said pond. In the afternoon, when Mohammed Sadak Ali, and his brother,
the deceased Samim Ali, went on the bank of the said tank for drawing water through the said pump, accused
Yanab arrived there.
He had an altercation with Mohammed Sadak Ali and Samim Ali which related to drawing of water from the
tank. Though, Sadak had assured Yanab that they would stop taking water from the Pukur within a short time, yet
Yanab forcibly switched off the pump machine. This further aggravated their altercation and accused started
abusing them
Thereafter, accused Yanab suddenly went running to his house and came back within a few minutes along with
the other accused named Najrul. Yanab then threw a bomb aiming at Samim Ali which hit him on his chest and
exploded. As a result thereof, Samim fell onto the ground, his clothes got burnt and he died instantaneously.
It is also the case of the prosecution that Najrul had a cloth bag in his hand and Yanab took out the bomb from
that cloth bag and threw the same towards Samim. Immediately after the incident, both the accused persons fled
away.
With the help of the villagers, Mohammed Sadak Ali took Samim to his house which was stated to be at a short
distance from the bank of the tank. The information with regard to the incident was given to the Rampurhat
Police Station through telephone.
Police officers, SI R.P. Biswas, along with SI Samit Chatterjee, arrived at village Lauria around
10.00 p.m. on 19th December, 1984. The telephonic information, on the basis of which the G.D.
Entry No.708, Ex.7, was lodged was made by Abdus Sukur (COUSIN OF DECEASED)from
a phone booth
After these officers arrived, Sadak Ali submitted a written complaint, Ex.1, addressed to the
OC of Rampurhat Police Station. SI, R.P.Biswas, then made an endorsement, Ex.1/1 and sent the
same through Constable Sunil Dutta to Rampurhat Police Station for starting a case
under Sections 148/149/324/326/302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and 9(b)(ii) of
the Indian Explosives Act.
Ex.1 was received at the police station by SI B.Roy. Upon this, a formal FIR, Ex.1/3, was
registered and the investigation was started by police.
He prepared the Inquest Report, Ex.2, over the dead body of the deceased on identification of
the same by his brother. The sketch map of the place of occurrence, Ex.8, was prepared. The
pump set was seized vide seizure list Ex.5 and a Zimma Nama Ex.6 was prepared.
The police also collected the post mortem report of the deceased from the Sub-Divisional
Hospital, Rampurhat on 21st January, 1985
The accused persons faced the trial for the above-mentioned
offences before the Court of Sessions, which by a detailed judgment
dated 18th September, 1992, held them guilty of the offences and
punished the accused Yanab

Aggrieved from the above judgment, the convicted accused, Yanab

Sheikh, preferred an appeal before the High Court in this
instant case
ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
Second FIR? whether FIR, Ex.1/3, can be treated by the
Courts as the First Information Report and if so, what is the
effect of Ex.7(GENERAL DIARY ENTRY) in law, keeping in
view the facts and circumstances of the present case.
The prosecution has not examined all the witnesses without specifying any reason.
Therefore, adverse inference should be drawn against the prosecution. There are
material discrepancies and variations in the statements of the witnesses. Even the injured
witnesses were not examined. For these reasons, the case of the prosecution must fail.
Acquittal of Najrul by the Trial Court should necessarily result in acquittal of the
present appellant as well, because without attributing and proving the role of Najrul, the
appellant could not be held guilty of committing any offence.
1. Whether FIR, Ex.1/3, can be treated by the Courts as the First Information Report
and if so, what is the effect of Ex.7 in law, keeping in view the facts and circumstances
of the present case?
The court was unable to accept the contention that Ex.7 was, in fact and in law, the First
Information Report and that Ex.1/3 was a second FIR for the same incident/occurrence
which was not permissible and was opposed to the provisions of the Section 162 of the
Code.
the purpose of telephone call by Sukur, when admittedly he gave no details, leading to the
recording of Entry, Ex.7, would not constitute the First Information Report as
contemplated under Section 154 of the Code.
Court stated that the second FIR about the same occurrence between the same persons and
with similarity of scope of investigation, cannot be registered and by applying the test of
similarity, it may then be hit by the proviso to Section 162 of the Code.
Relied on Anju Chaudhary v. State of U.P. & Anr. [Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) No.
9475 of 2008 decided on the 6th December, 2012]
In these circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention that Ex.7 was, in fact
and in law, the First Information Report and that Ex.1/3 was a second FIR for the
same incident/occurrence which was not permissible.

The purpose of telephone call by Sadak, when admittedly he gave no details, leading
to the recording of Entry, Ex.7, would not constitute the FIR as contemplated
under Section 154 of the Code. The reliance placed by the learned counsel appearing
for the appellant upon the provisions of Section 162 of the Code, is thus, not well-
founded.

On this principle of law, we have no hesitation in stating that the second FIR about
the same occurrence between the same persons and with similarity of scope of
investigation, cannot be registered and by applying the test of similarity, it may
then be hit by the proviso to Section 162 of the Code.
The delay in lodging the report was primarily for the reason that the person had
walked to the post office which was at quite a distance and then made a phone call to
the police station. The police had come on the basis of the call made by cousin of the
deceased.Thus, there was neither unexplained delay in making the call nor in
lodging the FIR. It is also the contention that Ex.7, the GD Entry is not an FIR
but is a mere intimation without any details and, therefore, the provisions
of Section 162 of the Code are not attracted in the present case.
The telephone call gave no details of the commission of the crime as to who had
committed the crime and how the occurrence took place. A First Information
Report normally should give the basic essentials in relation to the commission of
a cognizable offence upon which the Investigating Officer can immediately start
his investigation
In fact, it was only upon reaching the village Lauria that police got particulars of the
incident and even the names of the persons who had committed the crime. A written
complaint with such basic details was given by PW1 under his signatures to the
police officer, who then made endorsement as Ex.1/1 and registered the FIR as
Ex.1/3
In light of the above settled principle, we are unable to
accept that Ex.1/3 was a second FIR with regard to the
same occurrence with similar details and was hit
by Section 162 of the Code.

On the contrary, Ex.7 was not a First Information Report

upon its proper construction in law but was a mere
telephonic information inviting the police to the place of
occurrence. Thus, we have no hesitation in rejecting this
contention raised on behalf of the appellant.