Atul Bokriya And 5 Ors vs. State Of Nagaland

Facts

The petitioners filed a petition under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, and Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking to quash an FIR registered at Kohima North Police Station Case No. 09/2023. This FIR was based on a report by the erstwhile Director of the Lotteries Department, Nagaland, and alleged offences under various sections of the IPC and the Lotteries Regulation Act, 1998. The petitioners highlighted that similar FIRs had been filed in Kolkata, West Bengal, and that they had been discharged in one such case by an order dated 22.11.2023 from the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bidhannagar. They contended that the current FIR was a malicious prosecution aimed at harassing them, that the alleged offences occurred outside Nagaland's jurisdiction, and that they were whistleblowers exposing malpractices. A charge-sheet had been filed in the present case.

Held

The Court held that the FIR registered at Kohima North Police Station Case No. 09/2023 was not a second FIR in the prohibited sense. It reasoned that while some sections of the IPC overlapped with the FIR filed in Hare Street P.S, Kolkata, the Kohima FIR disclosed distinct and different offences. The Court found that the complainant in the Kohima FIR was a victim whose signature was allegedly forged, and the allegations were made from different spectrums and versions by different persons. The Court cited Surender Kaushik and Upkar Singh to support the permissibility of lodging two FIRs when rival versions of the same incident exist or when distinct offences are made out. The Court also referred to Surendra Singh Rathore, stating that a second FIR is permissible when the ambit of the two FIRs is different, even if arising from the same circumstances. The Court noted that the question regarding Section 500 IPC would be dealt with by the Trial Court. Applying the guidelines from State of Haryana vs. Bhajanlal and Jitul Jentilal Kotecha vs. State of Gujarat, the Court found that the facts and circumstances did not meet the criteria for quashing an FIR. Therefore, the Court concluded that the petitioners had not made out a case for quashing the FIR and consequent proceedings.

Key Issues

1. Whether the FIR registered at Kohima North Police Station Case No. 09/2023 is liable to be quashed on the grounds of being a second FIR for the same cause of action, thereby violating the principles laid down in T.T. Anthony vs. State of Kerala and subsequent judgments. 2. Whether the allegations in the FIR and charge-sheet disclose a prima facie case against the petitioners, or if the proceedings constitute an abuse of process or malicious prosecution. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioners argued that the FIR was a malicious prosecution intended to harass them for exposing malpractices in the lottery trade. They contended that the alleged offences occurred within the jurisdiction of Kolkata, West Bengal, and that they had no business in Kohima, Nagaland, making the FIR unsustainable. They emphasized that they had been discharged in a prior FIR in Kolkata concerning the same subject matter and allegations, rendering the current FIR on identical facts barred by law. They also claimed to be whistleblowers who had filed complaints against the de-facto complainant prior to the instant FIR. They relied on precedents like T.T. Anthony, Babubhai, Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah, and Arnab Ranjan Goswami to support the prohibition of second FIRs for the same incident. Revenue/State's Arguments: The State respondents did not present any arguments recorded in the judgment. The judgment notes that Mr. Tapan Ranjan Deuri appeared for the State respondents, but their specific contentions are not detailed.