Gauhati High Court clubs four FIRs over alleged ₹80-crore skill-training fraud involving 20,000 fake beneficiaries

The petitioner, associated with Ajitaaksh Ventures Private Limited, challenged the registration and investigation of four FIRs concerning alleged large-scale fraud and misappropriation in a Government of Assam skill-development programme conducted during 2016–2019.

The first complaint dated 13 September 2022 was registered as Dispur P.S. Case No. 2098/2022 and subsequently transferred to Rangia Police Station, where it was registered as Rangia P.S. Case No. 673/2022. Three further FIRs were registered at Rangia, Tihu and Dhula Police Stations and later numbered as Dispur P.S. Case No. 2365/2022, Tihu P.S. Case No. 100/2022 and Dhula P.S. Case No. 268/2022 respectively.

The petitioner contended that all four FIRs reproduced the same allegations concerning fake beneficiaries, false training records and food bills, and diversion of programme funds.

The State opposed consolidation on the ground that the FIRs were lodged by different complainants in different districts and that the Tihu FIR additionally named two government officials.

Whether successive FIRs lodged by different complainants concerning the same alleged occurrence, transaction and allegations could legally be registered and independently investigated.

Whether the subsequent FIRs should be clubbed with Rangia P.S. Case No. 673/2022, with the latter treated as the primary FIR and the subsequent complaints treated as statements under Section 162 CrPC.

The Court applied Sections 154, 155, 156, 157, 162, 169, 170 and 173 CrPC, holding under T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC 181, that there can ordinarily be no second FIR or fresh investigation regarding the same cognizable offence, occurrence or transaction; subsequent information is to be treated as material or statements in the investigation of the first FIR.

Under Babubhai v. State of Gujarat, (2010) 12 SCC 254, the “test of sameness” determines whether successive FIRs relate to the same incident or connected parts of the same transaction; a genuinely distinct incident or counter-case may proceed separately.

Anju Chaudhary v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2013) 6 SCC 384, establishes that the determination is fact-specific and no straight-jacket formula applies.

The Court also relied on the principles concerning “same transaction”—including unity of purpose, design and continuity of action—and on authorities permitting consolidation of multiple FIRs where multiplicity would cause prejudice and conflicting findings.

Applying the test of sameness, the Court compared the four FIRs and found that they contained substantially identical allegations, named the same principal accused, concerned the same two companies and arose from the same Government skill-development programme.

The allegations regarding preparation of lists of over 20,000 fake labourers, fabrication of photographs and videos, short-duration training being represented as 60-day training, false food bills and diversion of funds were common to all four FIRs.

The addition of two government officials in the Tihu FIR did not create a distinct transaction or materially differentiate the allegations against the petitioner.

Since the FIRs related to one continuous alleged scheme and not separate incidents or counter-cases, permitting parallel investigations would amount to an abuse of process, create avoidable multiplicity and risk conflicting findings.

Rangia P.S. Case No. 673/2022 was directed to be treated as the primary FIR, while Dispur P.S. Case No. 2365/2022, Tihu P.S. Case No. 100/2022 and Dhula P.S. Case No. 268/2022 were directed to be clubbed with it and treated as statements under Section 162 CrPC.

The subsequent cases were ordered to be immediately transferred to Rangia Police Station for investigation along with the first FIR, and the writ petition was accordingly disposed of.