Alok Sarkar vs The State Of Assam And 9 Ors.
- Court
- Gauhati High Court
GAHC010267952022
2026:GAU-AS:12335
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT AT GUWAHATI
(The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh)
PRINCIPAL SEAT AT GUWAHATI
W.P.(Crl.) No. 43/2022
1. Alok Sarkar, S/o-Late Amal Sarkar, residing at Flat No. 2B,
Nilakshi Apartment, Sewali Path, Hatigaon, Guwahati-
781038, District- Kamrup (M), Assam.
……Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Assam, represented by Commissioner and
Secretary to the Govt of Assam, Home and Political
Department.
2. State of Assam, represented by the Public Prosecutor
Assam.
3. The Officer-In-Charge Rangia Police Station, Rangia, Main
Road Rangia-781354.
4. The Officer-In-Charge Dispur Police Station, Dispur G.S.
Road Guwahati-781014.
5. The Officer-In-Charge, Tihu Police Station, Near Tihu Bazar
Nalbari-781371.
6. The Officer-In-Charge, Dhula Police Station, Mazgaon
Darrang-784115.
7. Madan Kalita S/O Late Padma Ram Kalita, R/O Vill- 3 No.
Hosong, P.O.-Madhukuchi P.S.-Baihata Chariali, Dist-
Kamrup (R), Pin-781381.
8. Smt. Amjuma Rajbongshi, R/O Vill-Barghuli, P.S.-Rangia
Dist-Kamrup(R), Pin-781364.
9. Haricharan Kalita, S/O Late Rohit Kalita, R/O Vill-
Haribhanga Bolethersupa, P.S.-Tihu, Dist- Nalbari Pin-
781371.
W.P.(Crl.)/43/2022
Page 1 of 25
10. Salam Ali, R/O Vill-Baghpori Mangaldoi, P.S.-Dhula Dist-
Darrang, Pin-784146.
……Respondents
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. S. Das, Advocate.
……Advocate(s)
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. D. Nath, Senior Advocate.
Mr. P.D. Bhuyan, Advocate.
……Advocate(s)
BEFORE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA
Date(s) of Hearing :- 09.06.2026, 11.06.2026
Date on which judgment is reserved :- 11.06.2026
Date of pronouncement of judgment :- 27.08.2026
Whether the pronouncement is of the
operative part of the judgment?
:- N/A
Whether the full judgment has been
pronounced?
:- Yes
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV)
(A.M. Kalita, J)
Heard Mr. S. Das, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner.
Also heard Mr. D. Nath, learned Senior Government Advocate,
Assam, appearing for respondent nos. 1 to 6 as well as Mr. P. D.
Bhuyan, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent nos. 7 to 10.
2. The instant application under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973, has been filed by the petitioner, challenging the registration
and thereafter investigation in successive multiple FIRs by different
police stations in different parts of the State of Assam based on same
allegations by different persons. And, therefore, praying for clubbing
W.P.(Crl.)/43/2022
Page 2 of 25
of all successive FIRs or complaints with the first FIR being Rangia
P.S. Case No. 673/2022 for being investigated at the same police
station, i.e., Rangia Police Station.
3. The facts leading to the filing of the instant petition are
summarized herein below: -
3.1. The respondent no. 7, namely, Madan Kalita and others,
vide a letter of complaint dated 13.09.2022 lodged an FIR
against the petitioner and another before the Officer-in-
Charge, Dispur Police Station, alleging, inter alia, that in the
year 2016–19, an amount of Rs. 80 crores was sanctioned for
skill development training, which was allotted to two private
companies, being Ajitaaksh Ventures Private Limited and
Gargo Institute of Technology; that the said two companies
created a list of more than 20,000 fake laborers
(beneficiaries); that the said two companies, by imparting
training sessions for 2–3 days, captured videos and
photographs of training sessions to show that training was
imparted for 2 months (60 days); that the two companies
presented fake food bills and siphoned off the entire money;
that the two companies deprived the beneficiaries from
certificates and government stipends; that the two companies
siphoned off Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 27,000/- in the name of
imparting training program to the laborers; that the two said
companies created fake food bills of Rs. 50,000/- per head and
siphoned off the money; that the petitioner used to manage
the functioning of the said two companies; that the said two
companies deprived the beneficiaries of wage compensation of
Rs. 280/- per day and Rs. 35/- per hour (8 hours daily) for 60
days (Rs. 280 x 8 x 50 = Rs. 16,800/-); that by giving a sum of
W.P.(Crl.)/43/2022
Page 3 of 25
Rs. 16,800/- to some laborers, the project was shown to be
completed.
3.2. On receipt of the aforesaid FIR, the police registered
Dispur P.S. Case No. 2098/2022, under Sections
120(B)/420/406/471 of IPC.
3.3. The complainants in the aforesaid FIR alleged that they
are the trainees of the skill development program floated by
Labour Department, Government of Assam, who had received
training from the company, namely, Ajitaaksh Ventures
Private Limited, wherein the petitioner is the CEO of the
aforesaid company.
3.4. During the course of the investigation of Dispur P.S. Case
No. 2098/2022, the petitioner was served with a notice under
Section 41A of the Cr.P.C., and the petitioner accordingly
appeared before the Investigating Officer and recorded his
statement before the Investigating Officer on 17.10.2022.
3.5. The petitioner was also served with a notice under
Section 91 of Cr.P.C. on 24.10.2022, directing the petitioner to
produce certain documents and records within 10 days and in
compliance of the aforesaid notice, on 03.11.2022, the
petitioner went to Dispur Police Station to submit the relevant
documents and records. However, on that very day, the
petitioner was informed by the I.O. of the aforesaid Dispur
police station case that the learned Special Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Kamrup (M) transferred the aforesaid FIR lodged
on 13.09.2022 to Rangia Police Station on 29.10.2022 as a
prayer was made by the I.O. citing want of jurisdiction. It is
contended that petitioner has been waiting for the
W.P.(Crl.)/43/2022
Page 4 of 25
investigation to be done by the Rangia Police Station, however,
nothing has happened till date.
3.6. Though, after the transfer of the aforesaid Dispur Police
Station case, the same has been registered as Rangia Police
Station Case No. 673/2022 on 04.11.2022 under Sections
120(B)/420/406/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code.
3.7. Thereafter, on 26.09.2022, respondent No. 8, namely
Smt. Anjuma Rajbongshi and others, lodged an FIR before the
Officer-in-Charge, Rangia Police Station, which was registered
as Rangia Police Station Case No. 596/2022 under Sections
120(B)/420/406/468 of the Indian Penal Code.
3.8. It is the contention of the petitioner that a bare perusal
of the FIR dated 26.09.2022, reveals that the allegations
contained in the said FIR are exact verbatim of the same
allegations as contained in the FIR dated 13.09.2022, filed by
the respondent No. 7 at Dispur Police Station. It is stated that
the Second FIR, i.e., FIR dated 26.09.2022 has been transferred
to Dispur Police Station by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Rangia on 29.10.2022 pursuant to a
prayer made by the I.O. of the Rangia Police Station Case No.
596/2022 and subsequently, the same has been registered as
Dispur P.S. Case No. 2365/2022.
3.9. Thereafter, on 14.10.2022, another FIR was lodged by
respondent No. 9, namely, Haricharan Kalita and others,
before the Officer-in-Charge, Tihu Police Station, which was
registered as Tihu P.S. Case No. 100/2022 dated 15.10.2022,
under Sections 120(B)/420/406/468/471 of the Indian Penal
Code.
W.P.(Crl.)/43/2022
Page 5 of 25
3.10. It is the contention of the petitioner that the contents of
the FIR dated 14.10.2022 are exactly the same as mentioned in
the earlier FIRs dated 13.09.2022 and 26.09.2022 filed by the
respondent Nos. 7 and 8 respectively, except to the fact that in
the FIR before the Tihu Police Station, the complainants had
alleged one Anusuya Dutta Baruah, former Assistant
Commissioner and one Prathajit Das, former Project Manager
of Assam Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare
Board (in short ABOCWWB), to be involved in the alleged
commission of offence.
3.11. On 16.11.2022, the respondent No. 10, namely, Salam Ali
and others filed an FIR before the Officer-in-Charge, Dhula
Police Station, which was registered as Dhula P.S. Case No.
268/2022, under Sections 120(B)/420/406/468 of the Indian
Penal Code.
3.12. It is the contention of the petitioner that the allegations
in the FIR dated 16.11.2022 are also the same and exact as the
allegations that have been made in earlier FIRs dated
13.09.2022, 26.09.2022, and 14.10.2022 respectively.
3.13. It is the contention of the petitioner that the allegations
leveled against the petitioner in all the four FIRs are exactly
the same and the multiple FIRs have been filed with baseless,
untrue, false and incorrect allegations only to harass the
petitioner.
3.14. Being so faced with multiple FIRs, the petitioner has
filed this instant petition praying, amongst others, for
consolidating and/or clubbing all successive FIRs, i.e., Dispur
P.S. Case No. 2365/2022, Tihu P.S. Case No. 100/2022, Dhula
W.P.(Crl.)/43/2022
Page 6 of 25
P.S. Case No. 268/2022 against the petitioner with the first
FIR, i.e., Rangia P.S. Case No. 673/2022 for being investigated
at the same police station by Rangia Police Station.
4. Mr. S. Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,
submits that the allegations made in the FIRs are mala fide and
vexatious and made with ulterior motive, just to harass the
petitioner. He submits that perusal of all the aforesaid four FIRs filed
against the petitioner, it can be seen that the allegations are exactly
the same, though the FIRs have been filed by different complainants.
He submits that the aforesaid fact clearly shows that all the four FIRs
have been filed with premeditated mind by the complainants in
different police stations only to harass the petitioner. He submits
that filing of multiple FIRs alleging the same allegations and offence
in different districts is a gross abuse of the process of law and the
same has been done only to harass the petitioner with mala fide and
ulterior motives after lapse of 3 years since the completion of the
aforesaid Skill Development Programme.
5. The learned counsel submits that under the provisions of
Sections 154, 155, 156, 157, 162, 169, 170 and 173 of the Cr.P.C.,
only the earliest or the first information in regard to the commission
of a cognizable offence satisfies the requirements of Section 154
Cr.P.C. Therefore, there cannot be a second FIR and consequently,
there cannot be any fresh investigation on receipt of every
subsequent information in respect of the same cognizable offence or
the same occurrence or incidents giving rise to one or more
cognizable offences.
6. The learned counsel submits that it is trite law that the right of
the police to investigate into a cognizable offense is a statutory right
over which the Court does not possess any supervisory jurisdiction
W.P.(Crl.)/43/2022
Page 7 of 25
under the Cr.P.C. The plenary power of the police to investigate a
cognizable offense is, however, not unlimited and the same is subject
to well-recognized limitations. He submits that where the police
transgresses its statutory power of investigation, the High Court,
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or Article 226/227 of the Constitution of
India, can interdict the investigation to prevent abuse of the process
of the court, or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that subjecting
an individual to numerous proceedings arising in different police
stations in different districts on the basis of the same cause of action
cannot be accepted. A fresh investigation or a second FIR on the
basis of the same or connected cognizable offense would constitute
an abuse of the statutory power of investigation and a gross misuse
of the State machinery.
8. In view of the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel
submits that the subsequent FIRs lodged by the complainants after
the lodging and registration of Rangia Police Station Case No.
673/2022 are totally untenable under the law and independent
investigations and trials in the aforesaid cases, if allowed, will cause
immense hardship to the petitioner. Therefore, he prays that the
subsequent FIRs after the first FIR, i.e., Rangia P.S. Case No.
673/2022 may be transferred to the Rangia Police Station and
clubbed all the successive FIRs with the Rangia P.S. Case No.
673/2022.
9. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel has referred
to the following cases: -
(1) T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala & Ors., reported in (2001) 6 SCC
181;
W.P.(Crl.)/43/2022
Page 8 of 25
(2) Babubhai v. State of Gujarat & Ors., reported in (2010) 12 SCC
254;
(3) Anju Chaudhary v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., reported in
(2013) 6 SCC 384;
(4) Amit Katyal & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Anr., reported in
2026 SCC OnLine SC 890;
(5) Pranab Jyoti Barman v. Union of India & Ors., reported in
(2021) 4 GLR 43.
10. Per contra , Mr. D. Nath, learned Senior Government Advocate,
submits that the primary prayer made in the instant writ petition
cannot be allowed due to the sole fact that all four FIRs have been
filed by different complainants, residing in different places and
districts, arising out of different cause of actions. He submits that
though the allegations are of a similar nature, the parties are
different and the investigations are yet to be properly started in the
aforesaid FIRs. He submits that one of the FIRs, namely, the FIR filed
before the Tihu Police Station also contains allegations against two
government officials, which makes this FIR distinguishable from the
other FIRs. He submits that though the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
several cases under Article 32 and Article 142 of the Constitution of
India has allowed the clubbing of multiple FIRs, however, in the
instant case, the same cannot be done due to the distinguishing
factors in the aforesaid FIRs. He submits that in each case, the facts
and circumstances are different and taking that into account the fact
that a straight jacket formula for clubbing all multiple FIRs cannot be
done. He submits that where incidents occurred at different times
involving different persons, with no commonality of purpose and
thereafter, emerged from different circumstances, they cannot be
termed as forming part of the same transaction or offense.
Therefore, different FIRs cannot be clubbed together. He further
W.P.(Crl.)/43/2022
Page 9 of 25
submits that clubbing all the FIRs will cause a lot of difficulties to the
complainants, as they reside in different places and would have to
travel to Rangia to participate in the trial if it proceeds. An accused
person cannot be given the right to choose the place of his trial.
11. In support of his submissions, the learned Senior Government
Advocate has referred to the following cases: -
1. Pramod Kumar Saxena v. Union of India & Ors., reported in
(2008) 9 SCC 685;
2. Anju Chaudhary v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., reported in
(2013) 6 SCC 384.
12. The respondents, i.e., the State respondent as well as the
private respondents have filed their affidavits-in-opposition
contesting the contentions of the petitioner in the instant case and
the petitioner has also filed his affidavit-in-reply against the
affidavits-in-opposition filed by the respondents.
13. From the facts and records, the following FIRs can be seen to
have been filed against the petitioner. The same are provided in the
following chart: -
FIR No. Complainants
SL.
No.
Chronology
of FIR
Date of
Information
Madan Kalita
1. First FIR 13.09.2022 Dispur P.S.
Case No.
2098/2022,
subsequently
transferred
to Rangia
Police
Station being
Rangia P.S.
Case No.
673/2022
& 19 Others
2. Second FIR 26.09.2022 Rangia P.S.
Case No.
596/2022,
subsequently
transferred
Anjuma
Rajbongshi &
Others
W.P.(Crl.)/43/2022
Page 10 of 25
to Dispur
Police
Station being
Dispur P.S.
Case No.
2365/2022
3. Third FIR 14.10.2022 Tihu P.S.
Case No.
100/2022
Haricharan
Kalita & 13
Others
4. Fourth FIR 15.11.2022 Dhula P.S.
Case No.
268/2022
Salam Ali & 9
Others
14. Now, it would be relevant to refer to the first FIR, dated
13.09.2022, filed before the Officer-in-Charge, Dispur Police Station,
which has been subsequently transferred to Rangia Police Station
and registered as Rangia P.S. Case No. 673/2022. The contents of the
FIR, being relevant, are extracted herein below: -
To
“
The officer -In- Charge
Dispur Police Station, Dispur, Guwahati- 6
Name and address of the accused:
1. Sri Amarjyoti Khanikar, s/o- Late Amulya Khanikar,
Director of Ajitakash Ventures Private Limited, Registered
office at Silver Square Building, Christain Basti, G.S. Road,
Guwahati- 781005, District of Kamrup (M), Assam.
2. Sri Alok Sarkar, S/o- Late Amal Sarkar, resident of Flat No.
2B, Nilakshi Apartment, Sewali Path, Hatigaon, Guwahati- 38,
District-Kamrup (M), Assam.
Sub: Ejahar
Sir,
We, the undersigned labourers residing with the jurisdiction
of Rangia Police Station have the honour to state with a heavy heart
that an amount of Rs. 80 Crore was sanctioned to Ajitaksh Ventures
Private Limited, Gargo Institute of Technology and Puberon, to
W.P.(Crl.)/43/2022
Page 11 of 25
impart training to the labourers under Skill Training Pilot Project
Phase I, 2016-19. But the three organisation prepared list of more
than twenty thousand fake labourers and beneficiaries, made fake
photographs and videos of imparting training to the labourers and
received the entire money for imparting training for two months
(60 days) just by imparting training to the labourers for two or
three days and misappropriated the entire money. The
organisations also received money in the name of providing food to
the labourers for the entire training period by submitting fake bills
and misappropriated the money.
1) They deprived the labourers undergoing training from
certification and government stipend.
2) Ajitaksh Ventures and Gargo instituted received an amount
ranging from Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 27,000/- against every labourer in
the name of imparting training to the labourers. Besides, the
organisations received money in the name of providing food to the
labourers by submitting fake bills and also received Rs. 50/- from
every labourer in the name of registration.
3) The organisations deprived every labourer from an amount of
Rs. 16,800/- i.e. Rs. 35/- per hour (8 hours daily) for 60 days (Rs.
280/- ×8×50 = 16 ,800/-) The project was completed by giving Rs.
16,800/- to some of the labourers.
We, therefore, earnestly pray to the your good self to be kind
enough to investigate the matter, to ensure punishment to the
culprits and to ensure that the labourers get their dues and oblige.
Yours faithfully
Signature of the deprived labourers
1. Sri Madan Kalita, Ph;7576856538
And Others (47 persons)
Received and Registered Dispur P.S. Case No. 2098/22 under
Section 120B/420/406/468/471 I.P.C, S.I. Jitendra Singh will
investigate the case.
W.P.(Crl.)/43/2022
Page 12 of 25
S/d illegible
Officer In- Charge
Dispur Police Station
Guwahati, 13/9/22”
Received vide Rangia P.S. GDE No. 809/2022 dated
04.11.2022 and registered Rangia P.S. Case No. 673 under section
120B/420/406/468/471 I.P.C. and intrusted to S.I…...
s/d illegible
Officer In charge
Rangia Police Station”
15. On perusal of the contents of the FIR and comparing the same
with the subsequent three FIRs dated 26.09.2022, 14.10.2022 and
15.11.2022, it can be seen that the allegations in the FIRs are exactly
the same. The only exception that is noticeable is that in the FIR
dated 14.10.2022 filed before the Tihu Police Station, in addition to
the petitioner and one Amarjyoti Khanikar, the names of two other
accused persons have been included, namely, one Anusuya Dutta
Barua, former Assistant Commissioner, and one Prathajit Das,
former Project Manager of Assam Building and Other Construction
Workers Welfare Board (ABOCWWB). Therefore, it is apparent that
the allegations made in the aforesaid four FIRs are the same and the
accused persons are also the same, except for the addition of two
other persons in the FIR dated 14.10.2022.
16. The issue regarding filing of the first FIR and subsequent filing
of the second FIR, has been dealt with by the Hon’ble Apex Court in
the case of T.T. Antony (supra) , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court
discussed in details about the procedure of filing of the First
W.P.(Crl.)/43/2022
Page 13 of 25
Information Report and its consequences. In this regard, the
following observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court being relevant are
extracted herein below: -
“18. An information given under sub-section (1) of Section 154
CrPC is commonly known as First Information Report (FIR) though
this term is not used in the Code. It is a very important document.
And as its nickname suggests, it is the earliest and the first
information of a cognizable offence recorded by an officer in charge
of a police station. It sets the criminal law in motion and marks the
commencement of the investigation which ends up with the
formation of opinion under Section 169 or 170 CrPC, as the case
may be, and forwarding of a police report under Section 173 CrPC. It
is quite possible and it happens not infrequently that more
information than one are given to a police officer in charge of a
police station in respect of the same incident involving one or more
than one cognizable offences. In such a case he need not enter every
one of them in the station house diary and this is implied in Section
154 CrPC. Apart from a vague information by a phone call or a
cryptic telegram, the information first entered in the station house
diary, kept for this purpose, by a police officer in charge of a police
station is the First Information Report — FIR postulated by Section
154 CrPC. All other informations made orally or in writing after the
commencement of the investigation into the cognizable offence
disclosed from the facts mentioned in the First Information Report
and entered in the station house diary by the police officer or such
other cognizable offences as may come to his notice during the
investigation, will be statements falling under Section 162 CrPC. No
such information/statement can properly be treated as an FIR and
entered in the station house diary again, as it would in effect be a
second FIR and same cannot be in conformity with the scheme of
CrPC. Take a case where an FIR mentions cognizable offence under
Section 307 or 326 IPC and the investigating agency learns during
the investigation or receives fresh information that the victim died;
no fresh FIR under Section 302 IPC need be registered which will be
W.P.(Crl.)/43/2022
Page 14 of 25
irregular; in such a case alteration of provision of law in the first FIR
is the proper course to adopt. Let us consider a different situation in
which H , having killed W , his wife, informs the police that she is
killed by unknown person or knowing that W is killed by his mother
or sister, H owns up the responsibility and during the investigation
the truth is detected; it does not require filing of fresh FIR against H
— the real offender — who can be arraigned in the report under
Section 173(2) or 173(8) CrPC, as the case may be. It is of course
permissible for the investigating officer to send up a report to the
Magistrate concerned even earlier that investigation is being
directed against the person suspected to be the accused.
19. The scheme of CrPC is that an officer in charge of a police
station has to commence investigation as provided in Section 156 or
157 CrPC on the basis of entry of the first information report, on
coming to know of the commission of a cognizable offence. On
completion of investigation and on the basis of the evidence
collected, he has to form an opinion under Section 169 or 170 CrPC,
as the case may be, and forward his report to the Magistrate
concerned under Section 173(2) CrPC. However, even after filing
such a report, if he comes into possession of further information or
material, he need not register a fresh FIR; he is empowered to make
further investigation, normally with the leave of the court, and
where during further investigation he collects further evidence,
oral or documentary, he is obliged to forward the same with one or
more further reports; this is the import of sub-section (8) of Section
173 CrPC.
20. From the above discussion it follows that under the scheme
of the provisions of Sections 154, 155, 156, 157, 162, 169, 170 and
173 CrPC only the earliest or the first information in regard to the
commission of a cognizable offence satisfies the requirements of
Section 154 CrPC. Thus there can be no second FIR and
consequently there can be no fresh investigation on receipt of every
subsequent information in respect of the same cognizable offence
or the same occurrence or incident giving rise to one or more
W.P.(Crl.)/43/2022
Page 15 of 25
cognizable offences. On receipt of information about a cognizable
offence or an incident giving rise to a cognizable offence or offences
and on entering the FIR in the station house diary, the officer in
charge of a police station has to investigate not merely 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 file one or more reports as
provided in Section 173 CrPC.”
17. In the aforesaid case of T.T. Antony (supra) , the Hon’ble Apex
Court has also discussed the right of police to investigate into a
cognizable offence, which is a statutory right over which the court
does not possess any supervisory jurisdiction under the CrPC.
However, it is mentioned that the plenary power of the police to
investigate a cognizable offence is not unlimited, and the same is
subject to certain well-recognized limitations. It is also mentioned
that where the police transgresses its statutory power of
investigation, the High Court under Section 482 CrPC or Article
226/227 of the Constitution in an appropriate case, can interdict the
investigation to prevent the abuse of process of court or otherwise
to secure the ends of justice. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid
case, in respect of the successive FIRs, has observed as follows: -
“27. A just balance between the fundamental rights of the citizens
under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution and the expansive
power of the police to investigate a cognizable offence has to be
struck by the court. There cannot be any controversy that sub-
section (8) of Section 173 CrPC empowers the police to make
further investigation, obtain further evidence (both oral and
documentary) and forward a further report or reports to the
Magistrate. In Narang case it was, however, observed that it would
be appropriate to conduct further investigation with the permission
of the court. However, the sweeping power of investigation does not
warrant subjecting a citizen each time to fresh investigation by the
W.P.(Crl.)/43/2022
Page 16 of 25
police in respect of the same incident, giving rise to one or more
cognizable offences, consequent upon filing of successive FIRs
whether before or after filing the final report under Section 173(2)
CrPC. It would clearly be beyond the purview of Sections 154 and
156 CrPC, nay, a case of abuse of the statutory power of
investigation in a given case. In our view a case of fresh
investigation based on the second or successive FIRs, not being a
counter-case, filed in connection with the same or connected
cognizable offence alleged to have been committed in the course of
the same transaction and in respect of which pursuant to the first
FIR either investigation is under way or final report under Section
173(2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate, may be a fit case for
exercise of power under Section 482 CrPC or under Articles
226/227 of the Constitution.”
18. From the above observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court, it is
discernible that on the same facts and same allegations, two FIRs
cannot coexist. In that event, coexisting being clearly beyond the
purview of Sections 154 and 156 of CrPC. It is also discernible from
the aforesaid observation that fresh investigation based upon the
second or successive FIRs, not being a counter case filed in
connection with the same or connected cognizable offence alleged to
have been committed in the course of the same transaction, then the
subsequent FIR may be an abuse of power and in that event, the
same shall be a fit case for exercise of power under Section 482 of
CrPC or under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution.
19. Following the same principle of law, the Hon’ble Apex Court in
the case of Babubhai (supra) has observed as follows: -
“20. Thus, in view of the above, the law on the subject emerges to
the effect that an FIR under Section 154 CrPC is a very important
document. It is the first information of a cognizable offence
recorded by the officer in charge of the police station. It sets the
W.P.(Crl.)/43/2022
Page 17 of 25
machinery of criminal law in motion and marks the commencement
of the investigation which ends with the formation of an opinion
under Section 169 or 170 CrPC, as the case may be, and forwarding
of a police report under Section 173 CrPC. Thus, it is quite possible
that more than one piece of information be given to the police
officer in charge of the police station in respect of the same incident
involving one or more than one cognizable offences. In such a case
he need not enter each piece of information in the diary. All other
information given orally or in writing after the commencement of
the investigation into the facts mentioned in the first information
report will be statements falling under Section 162 CrPC.”
21. In such a case, the court has to examine the facts and
circumstances giving rise to both the FIRs and the test of sameness
is to be applied to find out whether both the FIRs relate to the same
incident in respect of the same occurrence or are in regard to
incidents which are two or more parts of the same transaction. If
the answer is in affirmative, the second FIR is liable to be quashed.
However, in case the contrary is proved, where the version in the
second FIR is different and they are in respect of two different
incidents/ crimes, the second FIR is permissible. In case in respect
of the same incident the accused in the first FIR comes forward with
a different version or counter claim, investigation on both the FIRs
has to be conducted.”
20. From the observation made in the case of Babubhai (supra) ,
it is quite clear that if two or successive FIRs are filed against the
same accused person, both the FIRs need to go through the test of
sameness to find out whether the offence alleged or allegations are
same arising out of the same transaction. If it is found that the
allegations are same and the same has arisen from the same
transaction, the second or successive FIRs cannot be sustained as the
same are impermissible.
W.P.(Crl.)/43/2022
Page 18 of 25
21. In a similar situation, regarding a similar issue of multiple
FIRs, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anju Chaudhary
(supra) has observed as follows: -
"15. It has to be examined on merits of each case whether
subsequently registered FIR is a second FIR about the same incident
or offense or is based upon distinct and different facts and whether
its scope of inquiry is entirely different or not. It will not be
appropriate for the court to lay down one straight-jacket formula
uniformly applicable to all cases. This will always be a mixed
question of law and facts depending upon the merits of the given
case."
22. In the case of State (NCT of Delhi) v. Khimji Bhai Jadeja ,
reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 19 , while dealing with the issue of
clubbing several FIRs into a single FIR, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
has held as follows: -
"9. The issue, therefore, boils down to whether or not the
offenses allegedly committed against the 1,852 complainants were
part of the ‘same transaction’. We may first note the case law that
has developed over time on the issue of consolidation of FIRs. In S.
Swamirathnam v. State of Madras , a three-Judge Bench of this Court
rejected the contention of the accused that there was misjoinder of
charges as several conspiracies, distinct from each other, had been
lumped together and tried at one trial. The Bench observed that the
charges, as framed, disclosed one single conspiracy spread over
several years and the only object of the conspiracy was to cheat
members of the public. Per the Bench, the mere fact that others
joined in the conspiracy in the course of those years or the fact that
several incidents of cheating took place pursuant to the conspiracy
did not change the conspiracy or split it up into several
conspiracies. It was held that the instances of cheating were in
pursuance of one conspiracy and were, therefore, parts of the same
transaction.
W.P.(Crl.)/43/2022
Page 19 of 25
"11. In Cheemalapati Ganeswara Rao (supra) , a three-Judge Bench
of this Court observed that what is to be ascertained under Section
235(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (equivalent to
Section 218(1) CrPC) was whether the offenses arise out of acts so
connected together as to form the same transaction. It was noted
that 'same transaction' is not defined anywhere in the 1898 Code
and it was held that whether transactions can be regarded as the
same transaction would necessarily depend upon the particular
facts of each case. The Bench noted that general thought is that
where there is proximity of time or place or unity of purpose and
design or continuity of action in respect of a series of acts, it may be
possible to infer that they form part of the same transaction. The
Bench, however, cautioned that it is not necessary that every one of
these elements should coexist for transactions to be regarded as the
same transaction, and elaborated that if several acts committed by a
person show a unity of purpose or design, then it may be a strong
circumstance to indicate that those acts form part of the same
transaction. Noting that a transaction may consist of an isolated act
or a series of acts, the Bench held that such series of acts must, of
necessity, be connected with one another, and if some of them stand
out independently, they would not form part of the same
transaction but would constitute a different transaction. It was
concluded that 'same transaction' means a transaction consisting
either of a single act or a series of connected acts."
23. From the above observations, it is clear that every case will
have different facts and that has to be seen in terms of the principles
laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as to whether that passes
the test of 'same transaction' or 'sameness' as discussed above.
24. As far as clubbing of FIRs, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the same
case, i.e., Khimji Bhai Jadeja (supra) , has observed as follows:
"13. In Amish Devgan v. Union of India , seven FIRs came to be
registered in the States of Rajasthan, Maharashtra, Telangana and
W.P.(Crl.)/43/2022
Page 20 of 25
Uttar Pradesh in relation to a television telecast, which formed the
basis for the offenses alleged. Applying the law laid down in T.T.
Antony v. State of Kerala , which was followed thereafter in Arnab
Ranjan Goswami v. Union of India , this Court directed clubbing of the
FIRs. It was observed that when the subject matter of the FIRs is the
same incident or occurrence or is in regard to incidents which are
two or more parts of the same transaction, then a separate and
second FIR need not be proceeded with. It was observed that in
terms of the law laid down in T.T. Antony (supra) , the subsequent
FIRs would be treated as statements under Section 161 CrPC. It was
held that it would be open to the other complainants to file protest
petitions in case a closure report was filed by the police. It was
observed that upon filing of such protest petitions, the Magistrate is
obliged to consider the contentions raised; even reject the closure
report and take cognizance of the offense as otherwise such
complainants would face difficulty in contesting the closure report,
even if there is enough material to make out a case of commission of
the offenses."
25. Similarly, in paragraph 16 of the aforesaid case, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court observed as follows: -
"16. In Amanat Ali v. State of Karnataka , following the ratio
decidendi in Amish Devgan (supra) , this Court exercised power
under Article 142 of the Constitution and consolidated six FIRs
registered in the State to be tried together, as multiplicity of
proceedings would not be in the larger interest or in the interest of
the State. Again, in Ravinder Singh Sidhu v. State of Punjab , this Court
observed that it is now fairly well-settled that multiplicity of
proceedings would not be in the larger public interest and the
correct course of action would be to merge the later FIRs with the
earlier FIR with the State's consent. On the same lines, in Alok
Kumar v. State of Bihar , this Court noted that 81 FIRs were
registered and directed the first FIR to be treated as the main FIR
and all other FIRs to be treated as statements under Section 161
W.P.(Crl.)/43/2022
Page 21 of 25
CrPC. Earlier, in Satinder Singh Bhasin v. State of Uttar Pradesh , a
three-Judge Bench of this Court followed the principle enunciated in
Amish Devgan (supra) and clubbed, with consent, the 118 FIRs
relating to the 'Bike Bot' scheme registered across the State of Uttar
Pradesh and one FIR registered by the Economic Offences Wing,
New Delhi, by exercising power under Article 142 of the
Constitution. Before that, in Radhey Shyam v. State of Haryana , the
very same three-Judge Bench took note of multiple FIRs in
connection with a network marketing scheme in as many as 12
States and directed the clubbing of all FIRs, which could thereafter
proceed to one trial as far as possible, duly noting that all States
concerned voiced no objection to such course of action."
26. In this connection, the case of Amit Katyal & Anr. (supra) can
also be referred to, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed
that permitting multiple FIRs and investigations in different
jurisdictions on the same set of facts would not only be contrary to
the settled legal position, but would also result in avoidable
multiplicity of proceedings, conflicting findings and serious
prejudice to the petitioners. It was also observed that consolidation
of such FIRs at one place would subserve the ends of justice by
ensuring a coordinated, effective, and complete investigation, which
also safeguards the right of the petitioners to mount an effective and
meaningful defense in a single proceeding.
27. From the above discussions on the principles of law laid down
by the Hon’ble Apex Court in various cases, it is discernible that in
appropriate cases, multiple FIRs can be allowed to be clubbed
together and for that purpose, the first FIR can be treated as the
primary FIR and other FIRs can be treated as statements under
Section 162 of CrPC. However, there is no straightjacket formula for
doing so and the allegations in the FIRs as well as other factors like
modus operandi, number of transactions, parties to the offense and
W.P.(Crl.)/43/2022
Page 22 of 25
whether the cause of action is same, are relevant factors. The test of
sameness and one transaction are relevant criteria for treating the
subsequent FIR as a second FIR, which is not permitted under the
law. Where several offenses are part of the same transaction, the test
of sameness has to be applied to find out whether they are so related
to one another on the point of purpose or cause and effect, so as to
result in one continuous action.
28. The cases referred by the learned Senior Government
Advocate have also been considered.
29. The learned Senior Government Advocate has specifically
referred to the case of Anju Chaudhary (supra) to support his
argument that where incidents are of different times with the
involvement of different persons, then there is no commonality and
the purpose thereof is different and they emerge from different
circumstances, it will not be possible for the court that they form
part of the same transaction and therefore, could be a common FIR,
or a subsequent FIR could not be permitted to be registered, or there
could be a common trial.
30. This Court has considered his submission referring to the case
of Anju Chaudhary (supra) . However, in the facts of the instant
case, the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court cannot be applied
to, as the facts of the case before the Hon'ble Apex Court were
different and distinguishable.
31. Coming back to the facts of the instant case, it has already been
observed that the allegations made by different complainants in all
four FIRs are exactly the same. The people alleged to have been
involved are the same. The two companies alleged to have been
involved, namely, Ajitaaksh Ventures Private Limited and Gargo
W.P.(Crl.)/43/2022
Page 23 of 25
Institute of Technology are common in all the FIRs. The allegation of
creating a list of more than 20,000 fake laborers is also present in all
the FIRs. Allegations of making fake bills, fake food bills and
imparting training only for two days but showing to have completed
60 days are also the same. The FIRs do not disclose the time and
commission of the offenses, but it has been mentioned in all the FIRs
that the complainants are allegedly trainees of a skill development
program floated by the Labour Department, Government of Assam,
who had received training from the two companies, namely,
Ajitaaksh Ventures Private Limited and Gargo Institute of
Technology, wherein the petitioner is one of the CEOs. Therefore, the
allegations are admittedly regarding one skill development program
floated by the Labour Department, Government of Assam.
32. Upon perusal of all the FIRs, this Court does not find any
difference or any distinguishable facts in the aforesaid four FIRs.
33. Taking into account the principles laid down by the Hon'ble
Apex Court about sameness and transactions, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the allegations narrated in all the FIRs are
the same, though filed in different places.
34. In view of the aforesaid facts, this Court is also of the opinion
that allowing four FIRs to independently go ahead will be an abuse
of the process of law. It will also be contrary to the settled legal
position, which will result in much avoidable multiplicity of
proceedings, conflicting findings and serious prejudice to the
petitioner in the instant case. Therefore, this Court is of the
considered view that the first FIR, i.e., Rangia P.S. Case No.
673/2022, is directed to be treated as the FIR and the subsequent
FIRs, i.e., Dispur P.S. Case No. 2365/2022, Tihu P.S. Case No.
100/2022 and Dhula P.S. Case No. 268/2022, shall be clubbed with
W.P.(Crl.)/43/2022
Page 24 of 25
the first FIR, i.e., Rangia P.S. Case No. 673/2022 and shall be treated
as statements under Section 162 of the CrPC.
35. It is accordingly directed that Dispur P.S. Case No. 2365/2022,
Tihu P.S. Case No. 100/2022 and Dhula P.S. Case No. 268/2022 shall
be immediately transferred to Rangia Police Station so that the
investigation in the first FIR, i.e., Rangia P.S. Case No. 673/2022 can
proceed without any delay.
36. In terms of the aforesaid observations and directions, the
instant writ petition stands disposed of.
JUDGE
Miriam
W.P.(Crl.)/43/2022
Page 25 of 25