Court holds filing of multiple FIRs on identical allegations in different police stations amounts to abuse of process of law; subsequent FIRs to be treated as statements under Section 162 CrPC and investigated together.
In a significant judgment delivered on August 27, 2026, the Gauhati High Court addressed the issue of multiple FIRs filed against the same accused persons based on identical allegations relating to alleged financial irregularities in a government-sponsored skill development program in Assam. The petitioner, Alok Sarkar, had challenged the registration and investigation of four separate FIRs lodged at different police stations across Assam, contending that all FIRs stemmed from the same set of facts and were filed with mala fide intention to harass him.
The High Court, presided over by Justice Anjan Moni Kalita, meticulously examined the facts and the contents of all the FIRs involved. The first FIR was originally lodged at Dispur Police Station and later transferred to Rangia Police Station, registered as Rangia P.S. Case No. 673/2022. The subsequent FIRs, filed at Rangia, Tihu, and Dhula Police Stations, contained allegations verbatim to the first FIR, save for minor additions such as the inclusion of two government officials in one FIR.
Relying extensively on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in landmark judgments such as T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, Babubhai v. State of Gujarat, and more recent decisions including Amit Katyal v. State of Haryana, the Court reiterated the settled legal position that only the earliest or first FIR in respect of the commission of a cognizable offence satisfies the statutory requirements under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). It emphasized that subsequent FIRs on the same facts and allegations cannot coexist as independent FIRs and must be treated as statements under Section 162 CrPC, thereby preventing multiplicity of proceedings and abuse of the process of law.
The Court observed that allowing multiple FIRs with identical allegations to proceed independently would cause conflicting findings and prejudice to the accused, besides being an abuse of statutory powers. It noted that while the police have plenary rights to investigate cognizable offences, such powers are not unlimited, and courts can intervene under Section 482 CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution of India to secure the ends of justice and prevent harassment.
Rejecting the respondents’ contention that FIRs filed at different places by different complainants should be investigated separately, the Court found that the allegations had the necessary unity of purpose, design, and continuity, thus constituting the same transaction. The Court also clarified that there is no straightjacket formula for clubbing FIRs, but the test of “sameness” and “same transaction” as developed by the Supreme Court must be applied on a case-to-case basis.
Consequently, the Gauhati High Court ordered that the subsequent FIRs, namely Dispur P.S. Case No. 2365/2022, Tihu P.S. Case No. 100/2022, and Dhula P.S. Case No. 268/2022, be immediately transferred to Rangia Police Station and clubbed with Rangia P.S. Case No. 673/2022 for investigation as one consolidated case. This consolidation is expected to ensure a coordinated and effective investigation while safeguarding the accused’s right to a fair defense.
The judgment thus reinforces the principle against filing multiple FIRs for the same offence and marks a step towards curbing misuse of the criminal justice process in Assam and beyond.
Bottom Line:
Filing multiple FIRs with identical allegations in different police stations on the same set of facts amounts to abuse of the process of law. In such cases, subsequent FIRs should be clubbed with the first FIR and treated as statements under Section 162 of the CrPC.
Statutory provision(s):
Sections 154, 156, 157, 162, 169, 170, 173, 41A, 91, 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India
Alok Sarkar v. State of Assam, (Gauhati)(Principal Seat At Guwahati) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2968654
