Gauhati HC Refuses To Quash Nagaland Lottery Scam FIR, Says Second FIR Permissible If Allegations Differ

The Kohima Bench of the Gauhati High Court recently held that a second FIR arising from the same broad set of circumstances cannot automatically be quashed if it discloses distinct offences, different grievances, or a wider factual matrix.

The Court observed that the “test of sameness” must be applied carefully, and where rival versions, separate complainants, or additional allegations emerge, the registration of another FIR may be legally permissible.

It further held that the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings must be exercised sparingly, particularly when the allegations prima facie disclose cognizable offences requiring investigation and trial.

Justice Yarenjungla Longkumer, while dismissing a petition seeking quashing of a criminal case registered at Kohima North Police Station, ruled that the FIR and the charge sheet disclosed a prima facie case against the accused for offences including forgery of the official logo and signature of the Director of Nagaland State Lotteries and sale of fake lottery tickets.

The Court held that the case did not meet the well-established criteria for quashing criminal proceedings and therefore declined to exercise its powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 read with Article 227 of the Constitution.

The petition had been filed by six accused persons seeking quashing of an FIR registered on 13.03.2023 in connection with Kohima North Police Station Case No. 009/2023.

The FIR invoked several provisions of the Indian Penal Code, including Sections 120B, 417, 420, 464, 465, 467, 468, 499 and 500 read with Section 34, along with Section 7(3) of the Lotteries Regulation Act, 1998.

The petitioners contended that the criminal proceedings were malicious and constituted an abuse of the process of law.

According to the petitioners, the FIR was lodged by the then Director of the Nagaland Lotteries Department based on allegations that the accused were involved in manufacturing and distributing fake lottery tickets.

The petitioners argued that similar FIRs on the same subject matter had already been registered in Kolkata and therefore the present FIR amounted to an impermissible second FIR.

They pointed out that an earlier FIR had been lodged at Bidhannagar Police Station in Kolkata and that the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate there had discharged them in November, 2023. Another FIR had also been registered at Hare Street Police Station in Kolkata, where investigation was still ongoing.

The petitioners argued that since these cases arose out of the same alleged transaction, the Kohima FIR was barred in law and liable to be quashed.

The petitioners also contended that they had no business activities in Nagaland and that the alleged offences, if any, occurred within the territorial jurisdiction of Kolkata.

It was further argued that the FIR was retaliatory in nature because the petitioners had earlier filed complaints before various government agencies including the Enforcement Directorate, the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Finance Ministry alleging large-scale irregularities and tax evasion in the lottery trade.

Reliance was placed on several Supreme Court judgments including T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, Babubhai v. State of Gujarat, and Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. CBI to contend that registration of multiple FIRs relating to the same incident violates settled principles of criminal law and infringes Article 21 of the Constitution.

The State, however, opposed the petition and argued that the FIR registered at Kohima disclosed distinct and additional offences.

It was submitted that the complainant in the Kohima case was the Director of the Nagaland State Lotteries, whose signature and official logo were allegedly forged for producing fake lottery tickets.

The State also asserted that the Government of Nagaland had suffered significant financial losses due to the alleged activities of the accused.

The prosecution further argued that the allegations in the Kohima FIR were broader in scope and involved offences such as forgery of official documents, misuse of confidential government records, and tax evasion.

According to the State, these aspects were not identical to the allegations in the earlier FIRs and therefore justified an independent investigation.

After examining the FIR, charge sheet and statements of witnesses recorded during investigation, the Court found that the allegations disclosed a prima facie case against the petitioners.

The Court noted that the investigation suggested that the accused had forged the official logo and signature of the Director of Nagaland State Lotteries and sold fake lottery tickets, thereby causing substantial financial loss to the State.

The Court relied on Supreme Court precedents including Surender Kaushik v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Surendra Singh Rathore v. State of Rajasthan to emphasise that multiple FIRs may be permissible where rival versions exist or where the second FIR reveals a broader conspiracy or distinct offences.

It observed that the complainant in the Kohima case had a separate grievance as the alleged victim of forgery and misuse of official documents.

Applying the “test of sameness,” the Court concluded that although some allegations overlapped with the Kolkata FIR, the Kohima FIR contained additional elements and offences that made it distinguishable.

The Court observed that quashing the FIR at this stage would deprive the complainant of an opportunity to seek justice and prevent a full investigation into the alleged offences.

The Court also referred to the principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, which prescribe limited circumstances in which High Courts may quash FIRs. It held that the present case did not fall within those categories and therefore the extraordinary powers of quashing could not be invoked.

Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition seeking quashing of the FIR and allowed the criminal proceedings to continue in accordance with law.

The Court clarified that issues such as the applicability of Section 500 IPC would be examined by the trial court at the appropriate stage during the course of proceedings.

Case Title: Atul Bokriya and 5 Ors. v. State of Nagaland

Bench: Justice Yarenjungla Longkumer

Date of Judgment: 02.03.2026