Second FIR Not Barred When It Reveals A Wider Conspiracy And Distinct Offences: Gauhati High Court

“Test Of Sameness Fails When FIRs Are Filed By Different Victims Disclosing Additional Offences”, Gauhati High Court (Kohima Bench) delivered an important ruling dealing with the legality of multiple FIRs arising from alleged lottery fraud.

Justice Yarenjungla Longkumer refused to quash an FIR registered at Kohima North Police Station, holding that the principle prohibiting multiple FIRs applies only when both FIRs arise from the same occurrence and disclose identical allegations. Where the later FIR reveals a broader factual matrix, additional offences and a different victim’s grievance, it cannot be treated as an impermissible “second FIR”.

The Court held that the “test of sameness” was not satisfied, and therefore declined to exercise inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 read with Article 227 of the Constitution.

The dispute arose from FIR No.009/2023 dated 13.03.2023 registered at Kohima North Police Station, based on a written complaint filed by Zhothisa Dawhuo, the then Director of Nagaland State Lotteries.

The FIR alleged that the accused persons were involved in manufacturing and distributing fake lottery tickets using forged official documents and the forged signature of the Director of Nagaland State Lotteries. The case was registered under Sections 120B, 417, 420, 464, 465, 467, 468, 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code along with Section 7(3) of the Lotteries Regulation Act, 1998.

The petitioners approached the High Court seeking quashing of the FIR and the consequential proceedings, arguing that the same allegations had already been the subject of earlier FIRs registered in Kolkata.

They pointed out that an earlier complaint had been lodged at Hare Street Police Station in Kolkata in June 2022, leading to registration of a criminal case concerning alleged fake lottery tickets and fraud. Another FIR had also been filed at Bidhannagar Police Station, from which the petitioners had already been discharged by the trial court.

According to the petitioners, the Kohima FIR arose out of the same transaction, and therefore its continuation amounted to abuse of the process of law and malicious prosecution.

“Law Prohibits Multiple FIRs For Same Incident” – Petitioners’ Argument

The petitioners relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s decisions in T.T. Anthony v. State of Kerala, Babubhai v. State of Gujarat, and Arnab Ranjan Goswami v. Union of India.

They argued that once an FIR has been registered regarding a particular occurrence, any subsequent FIR concerning the same incident must be quashed, since criminal law does not permit repeated investigations into the same transaction.

The petitioners contended that the Kohima FIR was filed only to harass them after they had exposed alleged irregularities in the lottery trade.

According to them, the petitioners had earlier approached several government agencies including the Enforcement Directorate and the Ministry of Finance regarding alleged malpractice in the lottery business, and the FIR against them was merely retaliatory.

“Second FIR May Be Registered When It Reveals A Different Version Or Wider Conspiracy” – Court Observes

While examining the legal position on multiple FIRs, the High Court referred to several Supreme Court decisions including Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash, Surender Kaushik v. State of Uttar Pradesh, and the recent judgment in State of Rajasthan v. Surendra Singh Rathore (2025).

The Court observed that the prohibition against multiple FIRs is not absolute.

Quoting settled law, the Court noted that:

“Rival versions in respect of the same incident may take different shapes and in such circumstances the lodgment of two FIRs is permissible.”

The Court further explained that the permissibility of a second FIR depends on the ‘test of sameness’, which requires courts to examine whether both FIRs relate to the same occurrence, same set of facts and identical allegations.

If the second FIR reveals a broader conspiracy, new offences or additional victims, the bar on multiple FIRs does not apply.

“Forgery Of Official Logo And Director’s Signature Reveals Distinct Offences” – Court

After comparing the two FIRs, the High Court concluded that the allegations in the Kohima FIR were significantly different from those in the earlier Kolkata FIR.

The Kolkata FIR had been filed by a lottery buyer who alleged that the accused were producing fake lottery tickets and conducting illegal online lottery operations.

However, the Kohima FIR was filed by the Director of Nagaland State Lotteries, who alleged that:

“The accused persons had forged the official logo and name of the Nagaland State Lottery and also forged the signature of the Director of the Nagaland State Lotteries while manufacturing fake lottery tickets.”

The Court also noted that the investigation and charge-sheet revealed misuse of confidential government documents and tax evasion causing substantial loss to the Government of Nagaland.

Therefore, the Court held that the second FIR disclosed additional offences and a wider factual matrix.

“Quashing Second FIR Would Deprive Victim Of Justice” – Gauhati High Court

The Court emphasized that the Director of Nagaland State Lotteries was himself a victim of forgery, as his signature had allegedly been forged to commit the offences.

It held that preventing the investigation in the Kohima case would effectively deny justice to a different complainant whose grievance was distinct from that of the complainant in the Kolkata FIR.

The Court observed:

“If the FIR and consequent proceedings are scuttled by quashing the second FIR, the complainant in the second FIR would be deprived of justice.”

Thus, the Court concluded that the second FIR was legally sustainable even though some provisions overlapped with the earlier FIR.

“Defamation Charge Being Non-Cognizable Does Not Invalidate FIR” – Court

The petitioners also argued that the FIR included Section 500 IPC (defamation), which is a non-cognizable offence.

The High Court rejected this argument, noting that under Section 155(4) CrPC, when a case involves both cognizable and non-cognizable offences, the entire case is treated as cognizable.

The Court clarified that the trial court would determine at an appropriate stage whether Section 500 IPC should remain in the case.

“Power To Quash FIR Must Be Exercised Sparingly” – Court Applies Bhajan Lal Principles

While considering the request for quashing, the Court relied on the celebrated judgment in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, which laid down the circumstances in which courts may quash criminal proceedings.

The Court reiterated that the power to quash FIRs must be exercised sparingly and only when the allegations are absurd, inherently improbable, or maliciously instituted.

Since the allegations in the present case disclosed prima facie offences involving forgery, fraud and financial loss to the State, the Court found no ground to interfere.

The Gauhati High Court ultimately dismissed the petition, holding that the Kohima FIR could not be treated as an impermissible second FIR because it was lodged by a different victim, disclosed additional offences and revealed a wider conspiracy involving forgery of government documents and loss to public revenue.

The Court therefore allowed the investigation and trial to continue.

Date of Decision: 02 March 2026