Is a second FIR allowed for the same incident?

No. If it covers the same occurrence between the same parties with similar scope, a second FIR is barred by Section 162 CrPC.

What test does the Court apply to bar a second FIR?

The similarity test: same incident, same persons, and overlapping investigation scope indicate the second FIR cannot stand.

What did the Supreme Court decide in this case?

It rejected the second FIR and dismissed the appeal, keeping the original investigation and trial findings intact.

Does a telephonic GD entry count as the FIR?

Where the first information triggers the case and investigation, later detailed versions about the same occurrence cannot become a fresh FIR.

Yanub Sheikh v. State of West Bengal

```

Quick Summary

This case answers a simple doubt: can police lodge a second FIR about the same incident? The Supreme Court said no. If the parties, event, and scope match, a second FIR is barred by Section 162 CrPC. The appeal was dismissed.

Issues

Is a second FIR, for the same occurrence, hit by Section 162 CrPC?

Rules

A second FIR covering the same occurrence between the same persons, with similar investigation scope, cannot be registered.
Apply the similarity test: same incident + same parties + overlapping scope → barred under the proviso to Section 162 CrPC.

Facts (Timeline)

19 Dec 1984: Villagers hire a pump set to irrigate fields from Baro Lauria Pukur. Water is drawn.

Altercation: At the bank, Yanub argues with Mohammed Sadak Ali and his brother Samim Ali over water use; the pump is switched off.

Escalation: Yanub runs home and returns with Najrul.

Fatal act: Yanub throws a bomb at Samim. It explodes on his chest; he dies on the spot.

Aftermath: Accused flee. Villagers help take Samim to his nearby house.

Police entry: Telephonic info to Rampurhat PS → G.D. Entry No. 708. Case to be started under IPC 148/149/324/326/302 and Explosives Act 9(b)(ii).

Trial: Sessions Court finds the accused guilty.

Appeals: High Court dismisses Yanub’s appeal; matter reaches the Supreme Court.

Arguments

Appellant (Yanub)

Second FIR repeats the same occurrence and parties.
Investigation scope overlaps; barred by Section 162 CrPC.
Telephonic entry already triggered the case process.

Respondent (State)

Further details justify another FIR for clarity.
Second version aids a complete investigation.

Judgment

The Supreme Court did not accept a second FIR about the same occurrence with similar details; it is hit by Section 162 CrPC.
The appeal had no merit and was dismissed.

Ratio

Where the first information already sets the criminal law in motion for a specific incident, a later version about the same incident between the same parties with an overlapping scope cannot be treated as a fresh FIR.

Why It Matters

Stops duplicate FIRs for the same event.
Protects fairness and prevents abuse of process.
Gives a clear “similarity test” to students and practitioners.

Key Takeaways

Second FIR for the same occurrence is barred by Section 162 CrPC.
Use the similarity test: incident + parties + scope.
First info that starts the case controls the investigation stream.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “Same Scene, Same People, One FIR.”

Check Scene: Is it the same occurrence?
Check People: Are parties the same?
Check Scope: Is the investigation overlap clear?

IRAC Outline

Issue: Whether a second FIR about the same occurrence is barred by Section 162 CrPC.

Rule: Second FIR with the same incident, parties, and scope cannot be registered.

Application: Here, the telephonic entry started the case; later information mirrored the same event and parties.

Conclusion: The second FIR was not accepted; the appeal was dismissed.

Glossary

FIR: First Information Report—first step to start criminal investigation.
G.D. Entry: General Diary entry in a police station recording initial information.
Section 162 CrPC: Controls use of statements to police; used here to bar a second FIR for the same incident.