Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Gau) 399

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH
YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER, J.
Atul Bokriya And Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
State Of Nagaland - Respondent
Crl. Pet./21 of 2025
Decided On : 02-03-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Moa Jamir, Catherine Anichar Imti Longjem,Rishabh Jain,K Shijoh,Grace I Namgi,Imti Chang,Rosemary Kikon,Shisa Jamir,T.Metsieo,Thejanuo Metha,R Mere,M Solo,Y Humtsoe, M Jemu
For the Respondent: Peter Rana,Tekalong,Imkong Jamir,Tapan Ranjan Deuri,Medo Vero,Chubanungkum,Pfosekho Pfotte

Multiple FIRs arising from distinct allegations are permissible under the law, and quashing is not warranted if separate offences are disclosed.

Headnote:(A) BNSS, 2023 - Section 528 - Constitution of India - Article 227 - FIR quashing - Petitioners claimed malicious prosecution with no jurisdiction over the complaint filed. Multiple FIRs filed on the same subject do not bar quashing if concurrently pending criminal proceedings disclose distinct offences. (Paras 2-4, 15-20)

(B) Abuse of process of law - The initiation of criminal proceedings lacking relevant jurisdiction and founded on false claims amounts to an abuse of process. (Paras 5-6, 9)

(C) Test of sameness - The court must assess whether multiple FIRs arise from the same occurrence; if different, the second FIR is permissible. (Paras 21-24)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners faced FIRs for forgery and fraud linked to illegal lottery operations, claiming prior discharge in a similar case in Kolkata. The FIR in Kohima involved distinct allegations. (Paras 2-4)

Findings of Court:
The distinct nature of allegations and additional charges led to the rejection of the quashing petition. (Paras 27-29)

Issues: Whether the second FIR is sustainable given overlapping allegations and distinct offenses in each case. (Paras 15-20)

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the second FIR disclosed distinct offences permissible under law due to differing allegations, thus not infringing upon the original proceedings. (Paras 20-24)

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. factual background of the petition and firs. (Para 2 , 3 , 4)
2. allegations of malicious prosecution and jurisdictional issues. (Para 5 , 6 , 7)
3. state's arguments on distinct offences and grievances of complainants. (Para 8 , 10)
4. judicial analysis of fir distinctness and rival versions. (Para 14 , 25)
5. establishing the parameters for allowing multiple firs. (Para 19 , 20 , 24)
6. the court's ruling and dismissal of the petition. (Para 28 , 29)

JUDGMENT :

YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER, J.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. Imti Longjem and Mr. Tapan Ranjan Deuri, learned counsel for the State respondents.

2. The instant petition under section 528 of the BNSS , 2023 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners praying for quashing of the FIR and the consequential criminal proceedings against the petitioners in connection with Kohima North Police Station Case No.09/2023 dated 13.03.2023 under Section 120 (B)/417/464/465/499 of the IPC and also under Section 34 /420/500/467/468 of the read with Lotteries Regulation Act, 1998.

3. The facts leading to the filing of the instant petition is that the informant in the present case, Shri Zhothisa Dawhuo erstwhile Director of the Lotteries Department Nagaland had submitted a written report before the Officer-in-Charge of the North P.S Kohima and on the basis of the written report a case was registered as FIR No.009/2023.

4. It is stated that false FIRs on the same subject matter/facts and on the same sections of IPC have also been filed in different Police Stations in Kolkata, West Bengal on different dates. In the preceding year prior to the present FIR, another FIR had been lodged at Bidhannagar P.S, Kolkata by the Nodal Officer of Nagaland Lotteries at Kolkata. However, the petitioners have been discharged in the Bidhannagar P.S case by an order dated 22.11.2023 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Bidhannagar, North 24 Parganas, Kolkata. By filing an additional affidavit, the petitioners have also brought to the notice of this Court that another FIR dated 27.06.2022 has been filed at the Hare Street Police Station, Kolkata by another person. Pursuant to the FIR dated 27.06.2022, Hare Street Police Station has also registered the Case No.241 dated 23.08.2022 under Sections 34 /120 B/406/409/417/418/420/467/468/471/488 read with Section 3 and 4 of the West Bengal Gambling & Prize Competitions Act, 1957 and also section 7(3)/9 of the Lotteries Regulation Act, 1998 against the petitioners No. 1 to 5. In the Hare Street P.S Case No.241 dated 23.08.2022 investigation is still going on and charge-sheet has not been filed.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. Imti Longjem submits that the FIR lodged at the North P.S Kohima is a classic example of malicious prosecution, intended to harass, intimidate and silence the petitioners who have exposed large scale malpractices in the lottery trade. The petitioners have no personal or professional relationship with the complainant. The initiation of the criminal proceeding amounts to abuse of the process of law as the instant FIR has been lodged in order to counter the complaint made by the petitioner No.1 to the different Government agencies against the de-facto complainant/Zhothisa Dawhuo, and the distributors/agents/stockists.

6. It is stated that the alleged offence if any have occurred within the jurisdiction of Kolkota West Bengal. The petitioners are residents of Delhi and have never conducted any business in Kohima Nagaland. Therefore, no cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of North P.S Kohima making the FIR unsustainable. Further, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bidhannagar has already discharged the petitioners in FIR No.206/2023 pertaining to Bidhannagar P.S filed on the same subject matter and same allegation and arising out of the same transactions. Therefore, continuation of the present FIR on the identical facts is barred by law.