When is a second FIR legally valid?

When it reports a distinct offence, not a continuation of the first case. It must not be the same transaction or subject of further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC.

Why was the second FIR valid here?

It alleged misrepresentation of identity during bail proceedings—an independent deceit, separate from the Immoral Traffic Act offences in the first FIR.

Does double jeopardy block the second FIR?

No. Double jeopardy applies to the same offence. Here, the two sets of offences were different in nature, purpose, and timing.

What is the ‘same transaction’ test?

Courts see if acts are closely linked in time, place, purpose, and continuity. If not, a separate FIR may be proper.

Could this have been treated as further investigation?

No. Section 173(8) CrPC covers more evidence on the same offence. A fresh, different offence calls for a separate FIR.

Law Easy

02 November, 2025

351

Awadesh Kumar Jha v. State of Bihar (2016) – Second FIR vs Further Investigation | The Law Easy

```

Awadesh Kumar Jha v. State of Bihar (2016)

Second FIR or further investigation? The Supreme Court drew a clear line. Misrepresentation during bail was a fresh, distinct offence—so a new FIR stood.

Supreme Court of India 2016 Bench: Not specified (2016) 3 SCC 8 Criminal Procedure • FIR ~6 min read

By Gulzar Hashmi • India • Published: 02 Nov 2025

```

Quick Summary

The Supreme Court upheld a second FIR against the appellants for giving false identity details during bail. This was a fresh offence and not part of the first FIR on immoral trafficking. So, it could not be treated as “further investigation” under Section 173(8) CrPC. Double jeopardy did not apply.

Issues

Is a second FIR valid when it alleges misrepresentation of identity during bail?
Are the offences in the second FIR distinct from the first so that a separate prosecution is justified?

Rules

A second FIR is allowed only for a distinct offence, not a continuation of the first case (not mere Section 173(8) CrPC).
Misrepresentation in court proceedings is a separate offence from immoral trafficking alleged earlier.
Double jeopardy does not apply when offences are different and not part of the same transaction.

Citation: (2016) 3 SCC 8

Facts (Timeline)

Timeline for second FIR and proceedings in Awadesh Kumar Jha case

04 May 2008: First FIR No.111/2008 under Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 after a raid; appellants arrested.

06 Aug 2008: CJM took cognizance based on charge sheet under Section 173 CrPC.

Bail stage: Appellants allegedly gave false names and addresses.

03 Jul 2008: Second FIR No.183/2008 under Sections 419 & 420 IPC for misrepresentation of identity.

11 Sep 2008: CJM took cognizance under Sections 419/420 IPC.

18 Dec 2010: First FIR quashed by Revisional Court—no offence under the Act made out.

2013–2014: Discharge rejected; Sessions & High Court upheld second FIR as distinct.

SLP: Appellants challenged the High Court order before the Supreme Court.

Arguments

Appellants

Second FIR was a continuation of the first; should be treated as further investigation.
Double jeopardy and “same transaction” bar separate prosecution.

State

Misrepresentation during bail is a fresh, independent offence.
Different time, purpose, and act—so distinct FIR is proper; no double jeopardy.

Judgment

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. It held that the second FIR, alleging false identity details in court proceedings, disclosed a distinct offence. It could not be folded into the first FIR through Section 173(8) CrPC. The “same transaction” test was not met; double jeopardy did not arise. Proceedings under the second FIR were to continue.

Ratio Decidendi

A second FIR is permissible when it concerns a different offence happening in a different setting and purpose. New deceit during bail is not part of the earlier trafficking allegation; therefore, a fresh FIR is lawful.

Why It Matters

Clarifies boundaries between second FIRs and “further investigation.”
Reinforces the “same transaction” test for splitting or joining prosecutions.
Shows courts will treat deceit in legal proceedings as a separate wrong.

Key Takeaways

Second FIR Allowed: Only for distinct offences—here, false identity during bail.

Not 173(8): Further investigation adds to the same offence, not new offences.

Same Transaction Test: Time, purpose, and continuity must align—here they didn’t.

No Double Jeopardy: Different offences mean no constitutional bar.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “NEW FACT, NEW FIR.”

NEW: A fresh act (false identity) arose later, during bail.
FACT: Not part of the first case’s purpose or timeline.
NEW FIR: Separate registration; not Section 173(8) add-on.

IRAC Outline

Issue: Validity of a second FIR for misrepresentation vs treating it as further investigation.

Rule: Second FIR only for distinct offences; same-transaction bar; 173(8) for same case only.

Application: Misrepresentation during bail was separate in time and purpose; thus distinct.

Conclusion: Second FIR sustained; proceedings to continue; stay vacated.

Glossary

Second FIR: A fresh case report for a different offence, not part of the earlier transaction.
Section 173(8) CrPC: Provision allowing further investigation into the same offence after report is filed.
Same Transaction: A legal test: closeness in time, place, purpose, and continuity of action.

FAQs

The second FIR was valid because it alleged a different offence—false identity during bail—separate from the first FIR on trafficking.

Further investigation under Section 173(8) is for more evidence on the same offence. A new offence needs a separate FIR.

No. The two prosecutions were for different offences, so Article 20(2) and Section 300 CrPC did not bar the second case.

The “same transaction” test: if acts are not closely linked in time, purpose, and continuity, a separate FIR may be proper.

CASE_TITLE: Awadesh Kumar Jha v. State of Bihar | PRIMARY_KEYWORDS: second FIR, Section 173(8) CrPC, same transaction | SECONDARY_KEYWORDS: double jeopardy, misrepresentation during bail, distinct offence | PUBLISH_DATE: 02 Nov 2025 | AUTHOR_NAME: Gulzar Hashmi | LOCATION: India | Slug: awadesh-kumar-jha-v-state-of-bihar

Criminal Procedure FIR Evidence

Reviewed by The Law Easy

```

Comment

Nothing for now