Authority: Gauhati High Court (The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh)

Order Date: 27.08.2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioner: Alok Sarkar, S/o Late Amal Sarkar, residing at Flat No. 2B, Nilakshi Apartment, Hatigaon, Guwahati, Kamrup (M) district, Assam; CEO of Ajitaaksh Ventures Private Limited.
  • Respondents: The State of Assam (represented by the Commissioner and Secretary, Home and Political Department, and the Public Prosecutor), police officers-in-charge of Rangia, Dispur, Tihu and Dhula police stations, and individual complainants Madan Kalita, Amjuma Rajbongshi, Haricharan Kalita, Salam Ali, among others.
  • Nature of Proceeding: Writ petition (Criminal) under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking clubbing of four FIRs filed in different police stations on identical allegations.
  • Background: Four FIRs were lodged between 13 September 2022 and 15 November 2022 alleging that Rs 80 crore sanctioned for a skill‑development programme (2016‑19) was siphoned by Ajitaaksh Ventures Private Limited and Gargo Institute of Technology through creation of over 20,000 fake labourer records, fake training videos, fabricated food bills, and under‑payment of stipulated stipends. The petitioner was named as a managing director of the companies. The FIRs were:

1. Dispur P.S. Case No. 2098/2022 (later transferred to Rangia P.S. as Case No. 673/2022) – filed 13‑09‑2022 by Madan Kalita and 19 others.

2. Rangia P.S. Case No. 596/2022 (later transferred to Dispur P.S. as Case No. 2365/2022) – filed 26‑09‑2022 by Amjuma Rajbongshi and others.

3. Tihu P.S. Case No. 100/2022 – filed 14‑10‑2022 by Haricharan Kalita and others, additionally naming Anusuya Dutta Barua (former Assistant Commissioner) and Prathajit Das (former Project Manager, ABOCWWB).

4. Dhula P.S. Case No. 268/2022 – filed 15‑11‑2022 by Salam Ali and others.

  • Legal Submissions: The petitioner argued that the FIRs were identical, filed to harass him, and that under Sections 154, 155, 156, 157, 162, 169, 170 and 173 CrPC only the first FIR should govern investigation. He cited Supreme Court decisions (T.T. Antony, Babubhai, Anju Chaudhary, Amit Katyal, Pranab Jyoti Barman) supporting the prohibition of multiple FIRs on the same facts.
  • Respondent’s Position: The State argued that each FIR arose from distinct complainants and, in the Tihu FIR, involved additional accused officials, making them separate causes of action. Hence, clubbing should not be permitted.
  • Court’s Analysis: The Court examined the contents of all four FIRs, finding them verbatim in substance. It referred extensively to Supreme Court jurisprudence on the “test of sameness” and “same transaction”, noting that duplicate FIRs constitute an abuse of process and that subsequent FIRs should be treated as statements under Section 162 CrPC. The Court rejected the State’s claim of material differences.

Final Outcome

  • The Court held that the first FIR (Rangia P.S. Case No. 673/2022) is the primary FIR.
  • The subsequent FIRs – Dispur P.S. Case No. 2365/2022, Tihu P.S. Case No. 100/2022, and Dhula P.S. Case No. 268/2022 – are to be clubbed with the first FIR and treated as statements under Section 162 CrPC.
  • All three later FIRs are immediately transferred to Rangia Police Station for a single, coordinated investigation.
  • The writ petition is disposed of in favour of the petitioner.

Topics: FIR Clubbing, Criminal Procedure