In a significant pronouncement concerning criminal procedure and the limits of multiple FIRs, the Calcutta High Court delved into whether a second FIR, filed months after the first, yet based on the same alleged misappropriation of funds, could sustain a fresh criminal proceeding. The case brought into sharp focus the boundaries between legitimate investigation and abuse of process, as the Court examined whether the addition of new accused in a subsequent complaint transforms the nature of the original offence. Read on to explore how the Court addressed the “test of sameness” and clarified the legal framework governing the permissibility of successive FIRs arising from the same incident.
Brief facts:
The case involves two FIRs concerning the alleged misappropriation of Rs. 14,27,521. The petitioner, Branch Manager of L&T Finance Company, filed the first FIR under Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) against field officer Basant Kumar Podder, alleging he failed to deposit money collected from Tapasi Das and others and subsequently absconded. Tapasi Das, a co-complainant in the first FIR, was examined under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), and the investigation led to a charge sheet against Podder. Seven months later, Tapasi Das lodged a second FIR under Sections 406, 420, and 34 of the IPC, this time implicating both Ghosh and Podder, alleging collusion in the same misappropriation. The petitioner approached the Calcutta High Court to quash the second FIR, arguing it arose from the same incident and constituted an abuse of process.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Petitioner argued that the second FIR by Tapasi Das was not maintainable as it concerned the same incident and amount as the first FIR he had lodged against Podder. He claimed Tapasi, a co-complainant in the first FIR, concealed its existence to falsely implicate him. As Territorial Manager, he had no direct role in field collections, which were solely Podder’s responsibility. Alleging collusion between Tapasi and Podder in the misappropriation, he contended that the second FIR was a vindictive attempt to deflect blame. He maintained that the charge sheet against Podder in the first FIR confirmed his innocence and that the second FIR amounted to an abuse of process.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The State contended that the second FIR disclosed the full extent of the fraud, implicating Ghosh and Podder in a broader scheme of cheating. Statements recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC indicated both visited victims' homes, promoted the scheme, and collected money directly, including from Tapasi Das. Citing Podder’s statement, the State alleged he and Ghosh opened a fake L&T Finance office to deceive illiterate villagers and misappropriate funds. Relying on State of Rajasthan vs. Surendra Singh Rathore (2025), the State argued the second FIR was valid as it exposed systemic corruption, and quashing it would obstruct justice for multiple marginalized victims.
Observation of the Court:
The Bench of Justice Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee observed, “it is palpably clear that the subsequent FIR lodged by Tapasi is neither a counter complaint nor a rival version of set of fact in reference to which the former FIR has already been registered and has already been culminated into a charge sheet. It is also crystal clear from the subsequent FIR that ambit of the two FIRs, is also not different in as much as scope of both FIR is to make investigation about syphoning of money amounting to Rs. 14,27,521/-.”
“Moreover the second FIR does not disclose any new set of facts to be part of larger conspiracy as defalcated amount and the alleged cheated persons are the same in both FIR and second FIR does not bring any unknown fact or circumstances save and except the information, which complainant Tapasi sought to incorporate in the second FIR that Basant and the present petitioner are in collusion with each other have defalcated the above mentioned amount”, added the Bench
The Court, while precisely analysing the permissibility of the second FIR, observed that both FIRs centered on the same allegation of misappropriation of disputed amount, with the second FIR merely adding that Ghosh colluded with Podder. Citing T.T. Antony vs. State of Kerala (2001), the Court noted, “there can be no second FIR and consequently there can be no fresh investigation on receipt of every subsequent information in respect of the same cognizable offence or the same occurrence or incident giving rise to one or more cognizable offences.”
The Judge emphasized that the first FIR’s investigation, culminating in a charge sheet against Podder, covered the same incident, rendering a fresh investigation under the second FIR impermissible. The Court further relied on Bijay Kr. Ghai and Ors. vs. State of West Bengal (2022), which held that “a fresh investigation or a second FIR on the basis of same or connected cognizable offence would constitute an abuse of the statutory power of investigation.”
The Court clarified that the second FIR was neither a counter-complaint nor a distinct incident but reiterated the same offence, failing the “test of sameness” outlined in Babubhai vs. State of Gujarat (2010). The Court, while rejecting the State’s reliance on State of Rajasthan Vs. Surendra Singh Rathore noted that the corruption issue was already addressed in the first FIR, and no new facts or larger conspiracy emerged in the second. Tapasi’s delayed statement implicating Ghosh, made seven years after her initial statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., lacked credibility and did not justify a separate FIR.
The decision of the Court:
In the light of the foregoing discussion, the High Court allowed the revisional application and quashed the criminal proceeding, under Sections 406, 420 and 34 of the IPC, while holding that the second FIR, being based on the same incident and offence as the first FIR, was not maintainable and constituted an abuse of process. However, the Court clarified that this quashment does not preclude the investigating agency from seeking leave for further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. in connection with the first FIR.
Case Title: Ashok Ghosh Vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr.
Case No.: CRR 2705 of 2019
Coram: Justice Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee
Advocate for Petitioner: Advocates Sabir Ahmed, Sayak Ranjan Ganguly, Srijani Ghosh, and Indrarni Majumder
Advocate for Respondent: PP Debasish Roy, APP Anasuya Sinha, and Adv. Dattatreya Dutt
Read Judgment @ Lateslaws.com
Picture Source :
