📖 T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC 181

Facts: After a first information report had been registered and investigated in respect of an occurrence, a second first information report was registered in respect of the same occurrence, and a fresh investigation begun on the basis of a later version of the same events.

Held: The Supreme Court held that there can be only one first information report in respect of one occurrence, and that once an FIR has been registered and the investigation set in motion, there can be no second FIR and no fresh investigation on a later information about the same cognizable offence or the same occurrence. The Court held that the expression first information report means what it says: it is the information first received which sets the machinery in motion, and any later information about the same matter is to be treated as material in the existing investigation, not as the foundation of a new one. It reasoned that permitting successive reports would expose a person to successive investigations and successive prosecutions on the same facts, and would allow the police to reopen a matter at will by treating a fresh version as fresh information. But the Court made clear that the bar does not prevent further investigation in the same case, nor the registration of a case on a different occurrence or a distinct offence, nor a counter-case from the other side of the same incident.

Ratio: There can be only one FIR for one occurrence, and no second FIR or fresh investigation on a later information about the same matter. But the bar does not prevent further investigation, a case on a different occurrence, or a counter-case.

📖 State of Bihar v. J.A.C. Saldanha, (1980) 1 SCC 554

Facts: An investigation was in progress when the State Government directed a further investigation by a different agency, and the High Court, on a petition by the persons affected, interfered with the direction. The Supreme Court considered the respective spheres of the police and the courts in relation to an investigation.

Held: The Supreme Court held that there is a clear-cut and well-demarcated sphere of activity in the field of crime detection and its adjudication, and that the investigation of an offence is the field exclusively reserved for the executive through the police, whose powers are unfettered so long as the power is legitimately exercised in strict compliance with the statutory provisions. It held that the court’s function begins when a charge is preferred before it, and that a court has no power to interfere with an investigation in progress or to direct how it should be conducted. The Court held that the power to direct further investigation exists and may properly be exercised, and that the mere fact that a report has already been submitted does not exhaust it — the object being to place the fullest material before the court. It emphasised that a High Court exercising extraordinary jurisdiction should be slow to interfere with what is, in substance, an executive function.

Ratio: The investigation of an offence is a field reserved for the executive, whose powers are unfettered so long as they are exercised in compliance with the statute. The court’s function begins when a charge is preferred, and further investigation is not barred by a report already submitted.

⚠ What is not a second FIR

A later information disclosing a different occurrence or a distinct offence. The bar is on a second FIR for the same occurrence.

A counter-case from the other side of the same incident. Where two groups each allege that the other was the aggressor, both versions are registered and both investigated — the cases being tried, so far as possible, by the same court, one after the other.

Further investigation in the same case, whether on the officer’s own motion or on a direction. The submission of a report does not exhaust the power.

And the re-registration of a zero FIR at the station having jurisdiction, which is the same information given a number in the register of the station which will investigate it.

The position stated shortly

1. A zero FIR and a regular FIR are the same document at two stages, not two kinds of report.

2. A zero FIR is registered at a station without territorial jurisdiction, entered with a serial number of zero, and forwarded to the competent station.

3. The receiving station records, gives a free copy, takes urgent steps, and transfers. It does not investigate.

4. The statutory basis is section 173(1): information may be given irrespective of the area where the offence is committed. The expression zero FIR is police practice.

5. There can be only one FIR for one occurrence, and no second FIR or fresh investigation on a later information about the same matter: T.T. Antony.

6. The rule exists to prevent successive investigations and prosecutions on the same facts, and to stop the police reopening a matter at will.

7. The bar does not prevent further investigation, a case on a different occurrence, or a counter-case.

8. And it does not apply to the re-registration of a zero FIR — which is the same information, not a second version.

9. The investigation is a field reserved for the executive, and a court’s function begins when a charge is preferred: J.A.C. Saldanha.

10. Where a later version of the same occurrence is received, the proper course is to treat it as material in the existing investigation, or to conduct further investigation and file a supplementary report.