PRAYAGRAJ, Oct. 31 -- Clarifying the scope of the bar on registration of a second FIR, the Allahabad high court on Thursday held that the registration of a subsequent First Information Report with the same background is not legally prohibited if it discloses new and distinct offences based on fresh facts. Dismissing a writ petition filed by Parul Budhraja and three others, a division bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh and Justice Lakshmi Kant Shukla observed that while the Supreme Court's ruling in the case of TT Antony vs. State of Kerala 2001 prohibits a second FIR in respect of the same transaction or occurrence, it does not bar a subsequent FIR based on a different incident or discovery of a larger conspiracy or fresh facts. The court observed, "The "rule of sameness" must be applied pragmatically, and if the scope and object of the subsequent FIR are distinct from the earlier one, the bar against a second FIR does not operate." The court dismissed the writ petition challenging an FIR alleging the forging and use of fabricated documents by the petitioners, including a declaration and distributor application form purportedly bearing counterfeit signatures to somehow shield themselves from the investigation in the main cheating case pertaining to an investment scheme. In the present case, an FIR was filed against the petitioners in 2024 after the informant filed an application under section 156(3) of the criminal procedure code (CrPC) seeking the court's direction for registration of an FIR. During the court proceedings before the high court, the counsel for the petitioners contended that the 2024 FIR was nothing but a second FIR on identical facts relating to the same financial transaction investigated earlier in an FIR lodged in 2021. The counsel for the complainant argued that the present FIR arises from an entirely distinct transaction - the alleged forgery and use of fabricated documents, committed after registration of the first FIR in 2021....