Tripura HC rules a second FIR is legal if it alleges distinct crimes, like outraging modesty, not covered in the first report of the same incident

News Citation : 2026 LN (HC) 333

May 4, 2026 : The High Court of Tripura has dismissed a petition seeking to quash a criminal proceeding arising from a second FIR, ruling that while multiple FIRs for the same incident are generally prohibited, they are permissible when the subsequent complaint alleges distinct and more serious offenses. Justice Biswajit Palit delivered the judgment on May 4, 2026, emphasizing that the merits of each case must be examined to determine if a second FIR is legally sustainable.

The legal conflict centered on a single incident that occurred on February 14, 2017, involving a physical altercation in Barjala. Two separate FIRs were registered following the event. The first complaint was lodged by Subhash Chandra Biswas, alleging he was assaulted with wooden sticks by the petitioners—Dipali Rani Sutradhar, Kaliprasad Sutradhar, and Madhusudhan Sutradhar—while returning home from school. The second complaint was filed by Aditi Biswas, the daughter of the first complainant. She alleged that when she attempted to intervene to save her father, the petitioners assaulted her and outraged her modesty.

The petitioners argued that since both cases arose from the same transaction, the second FIR was a violation of their constitutional rights and an abuse of the legal process. They relied on established Supreme Court precedents, such as T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, which hold that a second FIR for the same occurrence is generally impermissible. However, Justice Palit noted that the law does not follow a straitjacket formula for multiple FIRs. While the court acknowledged the principle against double jeopardy, it pointed to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Anju Chaudhary v. State of Uttar Pradesh, which allows for a second FIR if the subsequent crime is of such magnitude that it falls outside the scope of the first complaint.

The High Court found that the second FIR included specific allegations of outraging modesty and offenses under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, which were absent from the father’s initial complaint. Because the subject matter and the scope of inquiry were different, the court determined the second FIR was not a mere re-investigation but a report of separate criminal acts. Furthermore, the court highlighted the belated stage of the petitioners’ request, noting that one case was already at the stage of final arguments. To ensure justice and avoid conflicting decisions, the High Court ordered that both cases be heard and disposed of by the same court, directing that a common judgment be delivered after all evidence is recorded.

Case Reference : Dipali Rani Sutradhar and Others vs. State of Tripura and Others (Crl.P.No.07 of 2025), the petitioners were represented by Mr. Anupam Pal, Adv., while the respondents were represented by Mr. Raju Datta, P.P., and Mr. Rana Gopal Chakraborty, Adv..