There cannot be 2 FIRs for the same incident lodged by the same person

 B. V. Byre Gowda vs Nisar Ahmed, the appellant had objected before the Karnataka High Court, to 2 separate FIRs filed on the same incident. 

In the case, the allegations were that govt. officials were not allowed to complete their assign work and further they were assaulted.

The appellant argued that the time of offence, place of offence and the incident which has triggered in registering the complaints, all of them happened between 6 a.m. and 9 a.m. Therefore, there can be only one complaint on this incident and there cannot be multiple complaints for a solitary incident. On the other hand, the Respondents argued two FIRs are permissible on 2 incidents as they are for different allegations - one which happened when the buntings were sought to be unauthorizedly put up incurring offences under the Representation of People Act or the Disfigurement Act. Staff/Officers were assaulted which was at 7.45 a.m. and this became a second FIR.

The High Court agreeing with the Appellant observed that in SURENDAR KAUSHIK AND OTHERS v. STATE OF U.P. - (2013) 5 SCC 148, the Supreme Court has observed that -

"it is quite luminous that the lodgment of two FIRs is not permissible in respect of one and the same incident.The concept of sameness has been given a restricted meaning. It does not encompass filing of a counter-FIR relating to the same or connected cognizable offence. What is prohibited is any further complaint by the same complainant and others against the same accused subsequent to the registration of the case under the Code, for an investigation in that regard would have already commenced and allowing registration of further complaint would amount to an improvement of the facts mentioned in the original complaint. As is further made clear by the three-Judge Bench in Upkar Singh [Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash, (2004) 13 SCC 292: 2005 SCC (Cri) 211] , the prohibition does not cover the allegations made by the accused in the first FIR alleging a different version of the same incident. Thus, rival versions in respect of the same incident do take different shapes and in that event, lodgment of two FIRs is permissible."

Further in ANJU CHAUDHARY v. STATE OF U.P., (2013) 6 SCC 384, the Supreme Court has observed that -

"the opening words of Section 154 suggest that every information relating to commission of a cognizable offence shall be reduced into writing by the officer-in-charge of a police station. This implies that there has to be the first information report about an incident which constitutes a cognizable offence. The purpose of registering an FIR is to set the machinery of criminal investigation into motion, which culminates with filing of the police report in terms of Section 173(2) of the Code. It will, thus, be appropriate to follow the settled principle that there cannot be two FIRs registered for the same offence. However, where the incident is separate; offences are similar or different, or even where the subsequent crime is of such magnitude that it does not fall within the ambit and scope of the FIR recorded first, then a second FIR could be registered."