Page No.# 1/7 vs The State Of Assam And Anr
2025 Latest Caselaw 7948 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/7 vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 23 October, 2025

                                                                        Page No.# 1/7

GAHC010139162025




                                                                  2025:GAU-AS:14103

                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
     (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                               Case No. : Crl.Pet./739/2025

            MAHBUBUL HOQUE
            S/OLT. IBRAHIM ALI
            R/O GYAN KUTIR, NIRIBILI PATH,
            GHORAMARA CHARIALI, BHETAPARA,
            GUWAHATI-781027, UNDER BASISTHA P.S. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM

            VERSUS

            THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
            REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM

            2:MUKSHED ALI
             S/O NISAB ALI
            R/O VILL- BHONGAMONDIA
            P.O. BHONGAMONDIR
            P.S. DHEKIAJULI
            DIST. SONITPUR
            ASSA

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. A M BORA, MR. M S HUSSAIN,MS. C CHOUDHURY,MR. D
K BAIDYA

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MD A RAHMAN (R-2),SAMIM RAHMAN(R-2),MR

SARFRAZ NAWAZ(R-2)

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS

JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV) Date : 23-10-2025

1. Heard Mr. A. M. Bora, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. D.K. Baidya, Page No.# 2/7

learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State respondent and Mr. S. Nawaz, learned counsel for the respondent no.2.

2. Vide this petition filed under Section 528 BNSS, 2023 ( corresponding to Section 482 Cr.P.C earlier) the petitioner, namely, MahbubulHoque, is seeking

quashing of the FIR pertaining to Dhekiajuli P.S. Case No.55/2025, under Sections 318(4)/316(5)/336(3) BNS and S.11(1) of The Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means). The said case was registered on the basis of an FIR dated 24.02.2025 filed by one Mukshed Ali.

3. Though the petitioner has sought quashing of the FIR, but an alternative prayer has also been made about amalgamation of the instant case with Patharkandi P.S. Case No.54/2025, under Sections 61(2)/318(4)/316(5)336(3) of the BNS, 2023. It may be mentioned herein that the said Patharkandi P.S. Case No.54/2025 was registered on the basis of an FIR dated 21.02.2025 lodged by one Someswar Konwar, Inspector of Police.

4. The gist of the allegations in the said FIR was that many students who were undertaking coaching under USTM Vision-50 programme were also

enrolled by the University in Central Public School, Patharkandi for their 12 th Standard Examination of CBSE. It is alleged that they were promised help by the invigilators at the time of the examination and it is also an alleged that the USTM authority took Rs 5 lakhs from some students to make them pass in the examination. The present petitioner was named along with five others in the said FIR lodged by Inspector Someswar Konwar giving rise to Patharkandi P.S. Case No.54/2025.

5. As already stated above, the present case ( Dhekiajuli P.S. Case Page No.# 3/7

No.55/2025) was registered on the basis of an FIR dated 24.02.2025. The allegation in the said FIR is also that the son of the informant was studying in

12th standard under USTM and appearing in H.S. final examination and he was also undergoing coaching classes in USTM campus under the Vision-50 programme for entrance examination. It is alleged that his son along with many other students were fraudulently enrolled in Central Public School, Patharkandi to appear for H.S. Final Examination and that the USTM authority took an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- in the name of coaching with guaranteed admission of his son in NEET.

6. It is alleged that before the H.S. Final Examination his son paid another Rs 40,000/- to the USTM authority. The FIR ends with the statement that the present petitioner along with others indulged in criminal conspiracy, cheating etc., to induce the students with false promise of better marks in the H.S. Examination.

7. During the hearing, the learned Senior counsel submits that the petitioner at this stage seeks amalgamation of the present Dhekiajuli P.S. Case No.55/2025 with the first case which was registered against him i.e. the Patharkandi P.S. Case No.54/2025. In this context, it is also submitted that similar FIRs making almost identical allegations were filed at other places in the State of Assam - giving rise to Gossaigaon P.S. Case No.31/2025, Kokrajhar P.S. Case No.61/2025 and Barpeta P.S. Case No.72/2025.

8. The learned Senior Counsel contends and submits that as per the settled law, there cannot be more than one FIR arising out of the same incident, unless it is a cross FIR. It is submitted that applying this settled law, a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 26.05.2025 passed in Page No.# 4/7

Criminal Petition No.301/2025, preferred by the present petitioner - was pleased to amalgamate the aforesaid three cases mentioned above with Patharkandi P.S. Case No.54/2025. The said judgment and order dated 26.05.2025 disposed of three criminal petition being Criminal Petition Nos.301/2025, 318/2025 and 320/2025.

9. A copy of the said judgment has been annexed with the present proceedings.

10. I have heard the learned Addl. P.P. for the state respondent, who submits that due to the fraudulent activities of the petitioner along with others, various criminal cases came to be registered against him by the guardians of the students. It is submitted that there is no merit regarding quashing of the present FIR. However, as far as amalgamation is concerned, the same would be governed by the settled law applied to the facts and circumstances.

11. I have perused the pleadings of the parties; the submissions of the learned counsels and also carefully gone through the judgment and order dated 25.06.2025 and the case laws discussed therein.

12. Upon perusing the first FIR lodged by the Inspector Someswar Konwar and the FIR dated 24.02.2025 lodged by present informant Mukshed Ali - I find that the allegations are broadly the same and arising out of almost the same transaction.

13. The gist of the same is that the students were enrolled for entrance coaching under Vision-50 programme of USTM; but they were also enrolled by the University in Central Public School, Patharkandi and assured illegal help to

pass their class 12th Standard examination; the authority also took Rs.5,00,000/- from some students with guaranteed success in Board Page No.# 5/7

examination and also entrance examination.

14. It is well settled that a rival version of the same incident by way of a cross FIR by the other party would be permissible but more than one FIR making allegations in the same direction arising out of the incident would not be permissible and that subsequent FIRs in such a situation would be in substance statements under 180 BNSS (earlier section 161 Cr.P.C.)

15. In the case of Babubhai Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in (2010) 12 SCC 254, the Hon'ble Supreme Court referring to the leading case of T.T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC 181 ,- stated the following in para-14, which is gainfully reproduced herein below:-

"14. In T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala [(2001) 6 SCC 181 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 1048] this Court dealt with a case wherein in respect of the same cognizable offence and same occurrence two FIRs had been lodged and the Court held that : (SCC p. 181d-e)

"There can be no second FIR and no fresh investigation on receipt of everysubsequent information in respect of thesame cognizable offence or sameoccurrence giving rise to one or more cognizable offences."

(emphasis supplied)

The investigating agency has to proceed only on the information about commission ofa cognizable offence which is first entered in the police station diary by the officer-in-charge under Section 158 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter called"CrPC") and all other subsequent information would be covered by Section 162 CrPC. for the reason that it is the duty of the investigating officer not merely to investigatethe cognizable offence reported in the FIR but also other connected offences found tohave been committed in the course of the same transaction or the same occurrenceand the investigating officer has to file one or more reports under Section 173 Page No.# 6/7

CrPC.Even after submission of the report under Section 173(2) CrPC, if the investigatingofficer comes across any further information pertaining to the same incident, he canmake further investigation, but it is desirable that he must take the leave of the courtand forward the further evidence, if any, with further report or reports under Section173(8) CrPC. In case the officer receives more than one piece of information in respectof the same incident involving one or more than one cognizable offences suchinformation cannot properly be treated as an FIR as it would, in effect, be a secondFIR and the same is not in conformity with the scheme of CrPC."

16. It may be also mentioned herein that in T.T. Antony (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court stated the following in para-27, which is also reproduced herein below:-

"27. A just balance between the fundamental rights of the citizens under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution and the expansive power of the police to investigate a cognizable offence has to be struck by the court. There cannot be any controversy that sub-section (8) of Section 173 CrPC empowers the police to make further investigation, obtain further evidence (both oral and documentary) and forward a further report or reports to the Magistrate. In Narang case [(1979) 2 SCC 322 : 1979 SCC (Cri) 479] it was, however, observed that it would be appropriate to conduct further investigation with the permission of the court. However, the sweeping power of investigation does not warrant subjecting a citizen each time to fresh investigation by the police in respect of the same incident, giving rise to one or more cognizable offences, consequent upon filing of successive FIRs whether before or after filing the final report under Section 173(2) CrPC. It would clearly be beyond the purview of Sections 154 and 156 CrPC, nay, a case of abuse of the statutory power of investigation in a given case. In our view a case of fresh investigation based on the second or successive FIRs, not being a counter-case, filed in connection with the same or connected cognizable offence alleged to have been committed in the course of the same transaction and in respect of which pursuant to the first FIR either investigation is under way or final report under Section 173(2) has been forwarded to the Page No.# 7/7

Magistrate, may be a fit case for exercise of power under Section 482 CrPC or under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution."

17. In the judgment dated 26.05.2025 passed by this Court, the three criminal cases filed in Gossaigaon, Patharkandi and Kokrajhar against the present petitioner were amalgamated on these principles with the original/first case being Patharkandi P.S. Case No.54/2025.

18. Upon perusing the FIR of Patharkandi P.S. Case No.54/2025 and the FIR of the present Dhekiajuli P.S. Case No.55/2025, I am of the considered view that both of these also pertain to the same circumstances out of which the allegations in the FIR dated 21.02.2025. Therefore, in the light of the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Petition No.301/2025 - a similar order is also required to be passed herein.

19. Accordingly, it is hereby directed that the Dhekiajuli P.S. Case No. 55/2025 shall be merged / amalgamated with Patharkandi P.S. Case No.54/2025 and the Patharkandi Police Station will conduct the necessary investigation.

20. Accordingly, the criminal petition stands disposed of on the aforesaid terms.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant