JUDGMENT : KAUSIK CHANDA, J. Let the report filed by the State be retained with the records. Pursuant to a complaint dated July 8, 2024, lodged by respondent no.8, an FIR was registered by Bhaktinagar Police Station under Sections 465 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, as FIR No. 603/2024 against the petitioner no.1 and his son (petitioner no.2). The complaint alleged that certain shares of Kamala Tea Company had been fraudulently transferred by forging the signature of respondent no. 8 in favour of the son of petitioner no.1. Challenging the said FIR, the petitioners have preferred a revisional application, being CRR No. 334/2024, before this Court. Initially, a stay was granted; however, upon its expiration, the petitioners filed an application seeking an extension of the stay order. It further appears that respondent no. 8 lodged an additional complaint before Bhaktinagar Police Station against petitioner no.2 and one Shyamal Sarkar, alleging that, subsequent to the filing of the earlier complaint dated July 8, 2024, he found that a purported resignation letter was fraudulently used to remove him as a Director of Kamala Tea Company by forging his signature. Consequently, based on a complaint dated November 6, 2024, another FIR was registered by Bhaktinagar Police Station as FIR No. 1037/2024 under Sections 336(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2), and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Mr. Sourav Chatterjee, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that two FIRs with similar allegations cannot be proceeded simultaneously. Conversely, Mr. Amales Roy, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents, opposes the prayer, contending that the investigation following the second FIR is permissible in law. This issue has been well settled by a series of judgments delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. A second FIR (which is not a cross-case) in respect of an offence or different offences committed in the course of the same transaction is not only impermissible but it violates Article 21 of the Constitution. If an offence forming part of the second FIR arises as a consequence of the offence alleged in the first FIR then offences covered by both the FIRs are the same and, accordingly, the second FIR will be impermissible in law. In other words, the offences covered in both the FIRs shall have to be treated as a part of the first FIR. In other words, the offences covered in both the FIRs shall have to be treated as a part of the first FIR. Furthermore, merely because two separate complaints had been lodged did not mean that they could not be clubbed together and one charge-sheet could not be filed. If two FIRs pertain to two different incidents/crimes, a second FIR is permissible. A second FIR would lie in the event for e.g. when pursuant to the investigation in the first FIR, a larger conspiracy is disclosed, which was not part of the first FIR. [ See: T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala & Ors., (2001) 6 SCC 181 , Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. CBI, (2013) 6 SCC 348 , Kim Wansoo v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 17, Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1 and Mahadev Govind Gharge v. LAO, (2011) 6 SCC 321 ]. In light of the aforementioned, this writ petition is disposed of with the directions that FIR No. 1037/2024, dated November 7, 2024, shall be clubbed with FIR No. 603/2024, dated July 8, 2024. However, this order shall be subject to the decision rendered in CRR No. 334/2024. Accordingly, WPA 343 of 2025 is disposed of. Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities.