Back
Clubs 4 FIRs Over ₹80-Crore Skill-Training Fraud Involving 20,000 Fake Labourers
The has ordered the clubbing of four separate FIRs arising from an alleged ₹80-crore skill development fraud, after finding that the allegations in all complaints were “exactly the same.” Justice Anjan Moni Kalita directed that the earliest FIR, registered at , be treated as the principal case, with the subsequent FIRs to be handled as statements under .
A Web of Complaints, One Core Allegation
The dispute revolves around the Skill Training Pilot Project Phase I (), a programme floated by the . The petitioner, Alok Sarkar , is the CEO of – one of the companies that allegedly received funds to train labourers.
The first FIR, lodged in by respondent Madan Kalita and 19 others, alleged that ₹80 crore was sanctioned but siphoned off through a scheme involving more than 20,000 fake beneficiaries . It claimed that training was given for only two or three days but shown as 60 days, and that fake food bills were submitted. Three subsequent FIRs were filed at Dispur, Tihu, and Dhula police stations , each containing strikingly similar accounts.
Petitioner’s Plea: Stop the Harassment
, counsel for Alok Sarkar, argued that the multiple FIRs were a clear . He submitted that all four complaints were “exact verbatim” of each other, differing only in the identity of the complainants. He contended that filing successive FIRs in different districts on the same cause of action was impermissible under the scheme of the CrPC, which envisions only one FIR per . He relied on the ’s ruling in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala (), which holds that no second FIR can be registered for the same incident.
State’s Defence: Different Victims, Different Jurisdictions
Opposing the petition, Senior Government Advocate submitted that clubbing would cause hardship to complainants who reside in different places. He argued that the FIRs involved different parties and that the Tihu FIR also named two government officials – Anusuya Dutta Barua and Prathajit Das – making it distinguishable. He cited Anju Chaudhary v. State of Uttar Pradesh () to contend that where incidents occur at different times or involve different persons, they cannot be treated as part of the same transaction.
The '' Applied
Justice Kalita conducted a careful comparison of all four FIRs. The court observed that the allegations – creation of fake labourer lists, fake training sessions, fake food bills, and siphoning of funds – were identical across every complaint. The only difference was the inclusion of two additional accused in the Tihu FIR. Citing Babubhai v. State of Gujarat (), the court noted that the “” must be applied: if both FIRs relate to the same incident or are parts of the same transaction, the second FIR is liable to be quashed or clubbed.
The judgment relied heavily on the principle laid down in T.T. Antony , which states that “only the earliest or the first information in regard to the commission of a satisfies the requirements of .” It also referred to Amit Katyal v. State of Haryana () and State (NCT of Delhi) v. Khimji Bhai Jadeja (), where the consolidated multiple FIRs to avoid .
Key Observations
“On perusal of the contents of the FIR and comparing the same with the subsequent three FIRs… it can be seen that the allegations in the FIRs are exactly the same.”
“The people alleged to have been involved are the same. The two companies… are common in all the FIRs.”
“This Court does not find any difference or any distinguishable facts in the aforesaid four FIRs.”
“Allowing four FIRs to independently go ahead will be an abuse of the process of law… resulting in avoidable , conflicting findings, and serious prejudice to the petitioner.”
Final Order: One Investigation, One Station
The High Court allowed the , directing that the first FIR (Rangia P.S. Case No. 673/2022) shall be treated as the . The three subsequent FIRs – Dispur P.S. Case No. 2365/2022, Tihu P.S. Case No. 100/2022, and Dhula P.S. Case No. 268/2022 – were ordered to be clubbed with it and treated as statements under Section 162 CrPC. All case records were directed to be transferred to immediately, ensuring a coordinated and single investigation.
The decision underscores the court’s power under read with to prevent , particularly when multiple complaints on identical facts threaten to subject an accused to parallel and potentially contradictory proceedings.
