Allahabad High Court Upholds Second FIR in Distinct Forgery Case

Court Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Second FIR, Distinguishing it from Prior Cheating Allegations

In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging the registration of a second First Information Report (FIR) against petitioners involved in a forgery case, affirming that the subsequent FIR pertains to distinct transactions separate from earlier allegations of cheating. The bench, comprising Justices Chandra Dhari Singh and Lakshmi Kant Shukla, delivered the judgment on October 30, 2025, in the case of Parul Budhraja v. State of U.P..

The case stemmed from allegations against Parul Budhraja and others of running an organized syndicate engaged in cheating and forgery. The initial FIR, registered in 2021, accused the group of deceiving Shubham Agnihotri into investing Rs. 7,50,000 in a business venture under false pretenses. The second FIR, filed in 2024, accused the same parties of forgery and fabricating documents to mislead authorities in the earlier case.

The petitioners contended that the second FIR was barred under the principle established in the Supreme Court's ruling in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, which prohibits the registration of a second FIR for the same incident. However, the High Court clarified that the second FIR disclosed new and distinct offences of forgery, committed after the earlier FIR, and thus did not contravene the T.T. Antony principle.

The Court emphasized the "test of sameness," which permits a subsequent FIR if it pertains to a different incident or reveals new facts. The bench noted that while both FIRs shared a common background, the offences and transactions were distinct, with the second FIR focusing on forgery and fabricated documents submitted during judicial proceedings.

The judgment outlined that the second FIR was legally permissible as it was based on a separate occurrence and fresh facts, thereby justifying independent investigation. The Court concluded that the FIR disclosed cognizable offences warranting investigation, and the petitioners had not demonstrated sufficient grounds for quashing the FIR under writ jurisdiction.

The dismissal of the writ petition allows the investigation into the allegations of forgery and document fabrication to proceed, underscoring the judicial commitment to ensuring that new and distinct criminal acts are duly investigated, regardless of their connection to prior incidents.

Bottom Line:

Second FIR - Bar on registration of second FIR under T.T. Antony principle applies only when both FIRs pertain to the same incident or transaction - Distinction between FIRs based on separate occurrences or new facts leading to fresh cognizable offences.

Statutory provision(s): Sections 156(3), 482 CrPC, Articles 226, 14, 20, and 21 of the Constitution of India, Sections 467, 468, 471 IPC.

Parul Budhraja v. State of U.P., (Allahabad)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2801244