Second FIR for the same offence?

In the matter of Chirra Shivraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh decided on 26-11-2010 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “First Information Report is a report which gives first information with regard to any offence. There cannot be second FIR in respect of the same offence/event because whenever any further information is received by the investigating agency, it is always in furtherance of the First Information Report”. In the case of Babubhai v. State of Gujarat & Others on 26th August, 2010, in Criminal Appeal No.1599 of 2010 (arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.2077 of 2010 this Court observed in para 13 as under: 13. ".......the investigating agency has to proceed only on the information about commission of a cognizable offence which is first entered in the Police Station diary by the Officer In-charge under Section 158 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (hereinafter called the Cr.P.C.) and all other subsequent information would be covered by Section 162 of the Cr.P.C. for the reason that it is the duty of the Investigating Officer not merely to investigate the cognizable offence reported in the FIR but also other connected offences found to have been committed in the course of the same transaction or the same occurrence and the nvestigating Officer has to file one or more reports under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. Even after submission of the report under Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C., if the Investigating Officer comes across any further information pertaining to the same incident, he can make further investigation, ..........". In the matter of Chirra Shivraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh it was further held that “In our opinion, it was not necessary to record another FIR as the death was result of septicemia which was due to the burn injuries. Looking to the facts of the present case, in our opinion, in fact the second FIR was nothing but a consequence of the event..... In the circumstances, the contents of the so called second FIR ...... could have been incorporated in the police diary as a result of further information or event which had been taken place in pursuance of the first offence.... It is true that the second FIR .... had been lodged .....when the report with regard to the death of the deceased was reported. As a mater of fact, in our opinion, it was not necessary to note the same as a new FIR but simply because the S.H.O made a mistake by recording it as a fresh FIR, it would not make the case of the prosecution weak especially when no prejudice had been caused to the appellant or any other person because of the aforestated further information with regard to the death being recorded as a new FIR”.