Page No.# 1/16 GAHC010231272024 2025:GAU-AS:14423 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6126/2024 KUNDAL SAIKIA S/O- NETRA SAIKIA, R/O- DIPOTA, P.S. TEZPUR, DIST. SONITPUR, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI. 2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE ASSAM ASSAM POLICE HEADQUARTERS ULUBARI GUWAHATI. 3:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE SONITPUR TEZPUR 4:THE OFFICER IN CHARGE TEZPUR SADAR POLICE STATION. 5:CHIRANJIT KUMAR BORAH SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE TEZPUR POLICE STATION. 6:JIAUL ISLAM ASSISTANT SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE BEBEJIA POLICE OUT POST. 7:SMTI.JOONMONI BARUAH BHUYAN D/O- LATE MOHENDRA BARUAH Page No.# 2/16 R/O- VILL.- MAJGAON HAT BOGA CHUBRI P.S. TEZPUR DIST. SONITPU Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S BISWAS, MR. H BURAGOHAIN,MS D DEVI Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, MR B SARMAH,Ld. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL) Date : 28-10-2025 Heard Mr. S. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Nath, learned Senior Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. The scanned copies of the trial court records, as called for, have been received. The learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for taking up the matter for disposal and the learned counsel appearing for the State respondents also urged for disposal of the matter. The matter was heard on 16.10.2025 and final submissions on behalf of the State and the response on behalf of the petitioner were made today. 2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the writ petitioner praying for quashing of the FIR dated 30.08.2024, which was lodged by the respondent No.7 in this writ petition, on the ground that this is a second FIR lodged against the petitioner on the same set of facts and raising the same allegations against him as had been done by the First Information Report lodged by the same informant on 09.08.2024 regarding the same incident. FACTS STATED IN THE WRIT PETITION: Page No.# 3/16 3. The petitioner contends that, as a plaintiff, he had initiated a Title Suit in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.2, Sonitpur, Tezpur, which was registered as Title Suit No. 84 of 2017, praying for a decree of right title and interest over a plot of land, for partition and further for cancellation of the illegal Sale Deed which was executed with regard to the land in issue. The suit was filed by naming one Shri. Mahindra Baruah, who is since deceased and who was the father of the respondent No.7 in this petition, one Shri. Hiranya Borah and finally Shri. Pankaj Saikia who is the brother of the petitioner as defendants. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that the suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner when the defendant failed to contest the suit and accordingly, a decree was passed on 06.05.2024, where amongst other relief being granted, the registered Sale Deed in favour of Mahendra Baruah had been declared to be null and void and liable to be cancelled. Armed with the said decree, the petitioner instituted Title Execution Case No. 26 of 2024 in the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.2 at Tezpur, praying that the Court may be pleased to cancel the registered Sale Deed No. 2130 of 2016 and 233 of 2017 by issuing precept to the Senior Sub-Registrar, Sonitpur at Tezpur. 5. Shri. Mahendra Baruah, who was the beneficiary of the Sale Deed, had been found to have embraced death under unnatural circumstances in the afternoon of 09.08.2024. The children of the deceased namely Nabadeep Baruah, Hirak Jyoti Baruah and Junmoni Baruah Bhuyan lodged a First Information Report before the Officer-In-charge of the Tezpur Police Station on 09.08.2024 itself, stating that their father had purchased a plot of land from late Pallab Saikia, Pankaj Saikia and Sri. Kundal Saikia. Thereafter, it was stated in the complaint that by the order of the Circle Officer dated 21.12.2016, the name Page No.# 4/16 of the deceased was mutated in the revenue records and since then he had been in possession of the land. He had thereafter started construction of a house. For the said purpose, when a copy of the Jama Bandi was acquired, it was seen that the names of the previous owners namely Pankaj Saikia, Pallab Saikia and Kundal Saikia had been recorded again in the Jama Bandi in place of the deceased Mahindra Barua. It was further alleged in the First Information Report that Shri Kundal Saikia, i.e. the petitioner in this petition, had started to talk before the villagers that he would evict the deceased and the informants from the land and the house. It was further alleged that the petitioner herein along with his brother Pankaj Saikia caused mental torture upon the deceased by demanding money from him. As per the allegations made in the FIR, the deceased, having failed to tolerate such mental torture, took the drastic step of embracing death at the age of 62 years. It was thus prayed before the Officer- In-charge to ensure justice by punishing Shri Pankaj Saikia and Shri Kundal Saikia in accordance with law. On receipt of the First Information Report, the Officer-In-charge of the Tezpur Police Station registered Tezpur P.S Case No. 475/2024 under Section 108/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, and entrusted Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Jiaul Islam to pre-step investigate the case and Sub-Inspector Bhadreswar Chamua was entrusted to investigate the case. 6. The petitioner herein thereafter preferred an application before this Court for being granted the privilege of pre-arrest bail which was registered as A.B No. 2255 of 2024. By the order dated 18.09.2024, the petitioner was granted interim relief to the extent that in the event of his arrest in connection with Tezpur P.S Case No. 475 of 2024, the petitioner should be released on bail of ₹25,000 with a surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting Page No.# 5/16 authority. The petitioner was directed to appear before the investigating police officer within 10 days from 28.08.2024. 7. Having obtained a certified copy of the order granting him an interim protection, the petitioner appeared before the Police authorities in the Bebejia Outpost on 30.08.2024. He was accompanied by his wife as he was suffering from ill health. Upon arrival at Bebejia Outpost, Sub-Inspector of Police, who was also the In-charge of the Bebejia Outpost, asked the petitioner to wait for some time and at around 06:15 P. M in the evening, the petitioner was informed that he would be taken to the Tezpur Police Station for completing some formalities. On arrival at the Tezpur Police Station, the petitioner and his wife were informed that the petitioner was being placed under arrest. Notice was handed over to the wife of the petitioner, where it was mentioned that the petitioner had been placed under arrest in connection with Tezpur P.S Case No. 519 of 2024, registered under section 308(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. 8. On obtaining certified copies of the Tezpur P.S Case No. 519 of 2024, it was revealed that the First Information Report on the basis of which the petitioner had been placed under arrest was launched on 30.08.2024 at around 04:16 P.M, i.e. at a time when the petitioner was physically present at the Police Station. Thereafter, a bail application being registered as B.A No. 2704 of 2024 was filed before this Court and by the order dated 13.09.2024, this Court granted bail to the petitioner on the conditions enumerated in the order itself. When the earlier Anticipatory Bail application filed by the petitioner came up for hearing on 18.09.2024, this Court was pleased to make the interim order dated 28.08.2024 absolute. The petitioner had to suffer incarceration from 30.08.2024 till 13.09.2024. 9. Alleging that the First Information Report launched on 30.08.2024 Page No.# 6/16 deserves to be quashed on the ground that it raises a similar complaint as was raised in the First Information Report lodged on 09.08.2024, this writ petition has been filed praying for quashing of the second FIR dated 30.08.2025 as well as all actions taken by the police authorities consequentially and also praying for adequate compensation to be directed to be paid to the petitioner by the respondent. ARGUMENTS BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER: 10. Opening his arguments, Mr. S Biswas has submitted that both the complaints, one dated 9.8.2024 and the other dated 30.08.2024, have the common threads running through them. a. Mr. Biswas, learned counsel has submitted that both the complaints relate to the same incident, i.e. the unfortunate circumstances under which Late Mahendra Baruah had expired. Therefore, there has to be a single investigation which would relate to all circumstances which may have led the deceased to end his life. b. He submits that the FIR dated 30.08.2024 is not a bonafide complaint, since both the complaints have one common informant, i.e. the respondent No. 7 in this writ petition, who is the daughter of the deceased. In the first complaint dated 09.08.2024, she had joined her brothers in lodging the complaint while in the second complaint, she was the lone complainant. In the second complaint, the informant has stated that her brothers did not know some of the facts, which were left out and which are being incorporated in the second complaint. This act, according to Mr. Biswas, is neither bonafide nor potent enough to turn the second compliant into a fresh FIR in its own standing, requiring a separate Page No.# 7/16 investigation. c. Mr. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that, save and except introduce a figure of Rs. 15,00,000/- and an allegation of threatening her father that he is close to extremists and other dreaded persons and that he would have to face consequences if the money demanded for withdrawal of the suit instituted by the petitioner was not paid, the second compliant did not reveal any fresh or new offence. The learned counsel submitted that even in view of the new insertion, registration of a fresh FIR by treating the additional information given by the respondent No. 7 was not permissible in law. d. Mr. Biswas, learned counsel has thereafter submitted that it would be apparent from the course of events and in particular, the police authorities involved as reflected in the documents made available with the records, that more than one of the police officers was privy to the fact that the petitioner had been granted the privilege of pre-arrest bail with regard to the FIR dated 09.08.2025. He submits that, therefore, it would be apparent that the petitioner was arrested on the basis of a second FIR being registered with the same set of incident even as the police authorities knew about the first FIR and also about the intention of the petitioner to appear before the authorities of the Bebejia Outpost in compliance of the orders passed by this Court with regard to the privilege of pre-arrest bail having been granted to the petitioner in connection with the first FIR. He submits that since the petitioner had apparently suffered restraint on his right to liberty and freedom upon his arrest at the hands of the instrumentalities of the State, the State would stand liable to compensate the petitioner for such wrongful restraint. Page No.# 8/16 e. Mr. Biswas, learned counsel further submitted that it cannot be denied by the respondents that the petitioner had arrived at the Bebejia Out post and appeared before the concerned authorities on 30.08.2024 on being granted the privilege of pre-arrest bail. The petitioner had appeared to participate in the investigation being caused into the untimely demise of the father of the complainant and there could have been no reason for the authorities to have arrested the complainant when he had made himself available for participating in the investigation with regard to the same incident. Mr. Biswas, learned counsel has submitted that it is settled position in law that the existence of a power to arrest is very different from the justification for the exercise of such power. He has submitted that no arrest can be made in a routine manner just because a police officer is empowered to arrest. He has submitted that the unnecessary arrest and detention of the petitioner has cast stigma to his respect and reputation, and in the event the arrest of the petitioner is found to be unnecessary, he would be entitled to be compensated in accordance with law. f. To add thrust to the submissions made, by Mr. Biswas has relied upon the following judgements and orders of the Apex Court: i. T.T Anthony -vVs- State of Kerala, reported in (2001) 6 SCC 181, para 18, 19, 27 ii. Babubhai and Others -Vs- State of Gujrat and Others, reported in (2010) 12 SCC 254, para 17 iii. D K Basu -Vs- State of West Bengal, reported in (1997) 1 SCC 416, para 44 54 Page No.# 9/16 iv. Md Abdul Halim -Vs- State of Bihar, reported in 2018 CrLJ 4146 v. Sabah Al Zarid -Vs- State of Assam & Others, reported in 2024 (2) GLT 506 vi. Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah -Vs- The CBI & Another reported in (2013) 6 SCC 348, para 32, 37 g. Summing up his arguments, Mr. Biswas, learned counsel has submitted that the action of the police authorities in registering another FIR by the same complainant on the same incident and subsequently placing the petitioner under arrest in connection with the second FIR cannot be termed to be a bonafide act. The learned Counsel has drawn reference to the copy of the FIR dated 30.08.2024 annexed to the writ petition to show that though the complaint in the written form had been submitted at the Bebejia Outpost on 28.08.2024, Sri Jiaul Islam, ASI had taken up an enquiry and put up a note on the body of the FIR itself on 29.08.2024 to the Officer-In-Charge, Tezpur Police Station, stating that although a case with regard to the same incident had been registered as Tezpur Police Station Case No. 395/2024, in the second complaint, an allegation of demanding Rs 15,00,000/- had been raised. By the same note, a request was made to register a police case under appropriate provisions of law. Mr. Biswas submits that thereafter, as per the document available on record, the In-charge of the Tezpur Police Station had registered Tezpur Police Station case No 519/2024 and entrusted Sub-Inspector Chamuah to investigate the allegations. Mr. Biswas, learned counsel then drew attention of this Court to the fact that ASI Jiaul Islam was the same person who was part of the team investigating the allegation made in the FIR No. 395/2024 and therefore, it was incumbent upon him to treat the Page No.# 10/16 second compliant filed by the respondent no 7 as further statements/evidence and there was no occasion for him to have forwarded the same to the Tezpur Police Station for registration of another FIR. He has submitted that the act of the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police in making a recommendation for the registration of a second FIR and thereafter, immediately causing the arrest of the petitioner speaks volume of the concerted efforts by the police authority to ensure that the petitioner was put under arrest and the privilege of bail obtained by him did not protect him from facing incarceration. The learned Counsel for the petitioner therefore submitted that the arrest of the petitioner being wholly illegal and apparently unlawful and germinating from ill motives of the respondent authorities, the petitioner deserves to be compensated adequately in accordance with law. ARGUMENTS BY LEARNED SR. GOVT. ADVOCATE: 11. Mr. D. Nath, the learned Senior Government Advocate appearing for the State respondents has vehemently opposed the case put up on behalf of the petitioner and has submitted that the writ petition is devoid of merits. The learned Senior Government Advocate has submitted that a perusal of the two complaints, one dated 09.08.2024 and the other dated 30.08.2024, would reveal that while the first one had made allegation against the writ petitioner of abetment of suicide of the father of the respondent No. 7, the complaint lodged on 30.08.2024 raised allegations of commission of a different set of offence, namely extortion. He has submitted that it is a settled position in law that when different complaints are lodged with reference to a single incident but each complaint describes a separate set of offences, the police authorities are required to register separate FIRs, which require independent investigations. He Page No.# 11/16 has submitted that though it may be correct to say that the petitioner had appeared before the police authorities under protection of pre-arrest bail with regard to Tezpur Police Station Case No. 475/2024, it was equally true that the police authorities, investigating Tezpur PS Case No. 519/2024 cannot be expected not to arrest the petitioner available in the police station, when the allegations levelled in Tezpur PS Case No. 519/2024 revealed commission of non-bailable offenses of extortion. He has further submitted that both the complaints revealed commission of separate offences and therefore, registering of two cases cannot be faulted with. He further submits that since the petitioner was arrested on the basis of a police registered case which reflected commission of non-bailable offences by the petitioner, his arrest cannot be termed to be illegal or unlawful and the petitioner's claim for compensation for his arrest does not deserve consideration by this Court. On a query made by this Court, the learned Senior Government Advocate, on instructions has submitted that though charge-sheet has been submitted in connection with Tezpur Police Station Case No. 519/2024, the case has been kept in abeyance before the Trial Court concerned and no final form has been submitted in connection with Tezpur PS Case No. 474/2024. FINDINGS AND REASONS: 12. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties have received the consideration of this Court. The undisputed facts are that Late Mahendra Baruah had acquired a plot of land by way of sale and purchase and that the petitioner herein had right, title and interest in the said piece of land prior to its sale. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner herein had filed a Title Suit and had succeeded in having the sale deed, under which late Mahendra Baruah had acquired right, title and interest, to be set at naught and had also got the Page No.# 12/16 revenue records amended to exclude the name of late Mahendra Baruah and have his name inserted/re-inserted in the revenue records. It is also not in dispute that late Mahendra Barua chose to end his life on the fateful afternoon of 09.08.2024 and on the said fact having come to the knowledge of his children, the three children filed a complaint before the Bebejia Outpost on 09.08.2024 itself raising allegations against the petitioner herein of having pushed the deceased to his death by demanding money from him for withdrawing the litigation initiated by the petitioner herein. It is also not in dispute that a second complaint was lodged by the respondent No. 8 herein on 30.08.2024, although she was a complainant in the earlier complaint filed on 09.08.2024, regarding the same incident, this time however bringing on record allegations against the petitioner by quoting a particular sum of money which the informant said was sought to be extorted from her deceased father. The facts of pre-arrest bail being granted to the petitioner on the first FIR are a matter of records as is the fact of his arrest on 30.08.2024 on the basis of the second FIR. 13. This Court has perused both, the first information given to the police on 09.08.2024 and the second information given on 30.08.2024. The incident on the basis of which both complaints were lodged is the same. One of the informants in both the FIR are the same. In the second FIR, it had been alleged that the petitioner herein had demanded Rs. 15,00,000/- from the deceased to withdraw the suit. It had been further alleged that the petitioner threatened him that in case he failed to pay the amount, his sons would face dire consequences and that he also said that he was close to extremists and his sons should be careful. It is seen that the first FIR had also alleged that the petitioner had demanded money for withdrawing the litigation, although the Page No.# 13/16 sum was not named in the FIR, and it was also one of the allegation that the petitioner had been harassing the deceased mentally. Having considered the contents of both the informations given to the police, the first dated 09.08.2024 and the second dated 30.08.2024, I am of the considered view that both relate to the same incident, i.e. the death of Late Mahendra Barua, and both contain complaints against, amongst others, the petitioner in this writ petition to the extent that he had been harassing the deceased to pay him money for withdrawing the suit and had been issuing threats to the deceased. Thus, it is apparent that investigation into the allegations raised in the FIR dated 09.08.2024, which culminated in Tezpur PS Case No. 475/2024, would also lead to investigation into the allegation levelled against the petitioner regarding threats being issued in default to pay the demanded sum. Viewed in that manner, second set of information being made to the police authorities would have been an additional piece of information in the investigation of the first FIR. The Supreme Court in T.T Anthony -vs- State of Kerala (supra) has held that on receipt of information about a cognizable offence or offences and on entering the F.I.R. in the station house diary, the officer in charge of a Police Station has to investigate not merely the cognizable offence reported in the FIR but also other connected offences found to have been committed “in the course of the same transaction or the same occurrence” and file one or more reports as provided in Section 173 of the Cr. P.C. It was also held that if the gravamen of the charges in the two FIRs-the first and the second-is in substance and truth the same, registering the second FIR and making fresh investigation and forwarding report under Section 173 Cr.P.C will be irregular. At paragraph-27 of the said judgment, it was further held that a just balance between the fundamental rights of the citizens under Articles-19 and 21 of the Constitution Page No.# 14/16 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 Cr. P.C empowers the police to make further investigation, obtain further evidence (both oral and documentary) and forward report or reports to the Magistrate. 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 154 and 156 Cr.P.C. 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 underway or final report under Section 173(2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate, may be a fit case for exercise of power under Section 482 Cr. P.C or under Article 226/227 of the Constitution. 14. I am therefore of the considered view that the second FIR in the present case, which culminated in Tezpur Police Station Case No. 519/2024 and finally in GR Case No. 1331/2024, was not warranted in law and accordingly deserves interference of this Court in its existence as a FIR which could lead to initiation of fresh case against the petitioner. The registration of the information in the said FIR dated 30.08.2024 as a case separate from Tezpur Police Station Case No. 475/2024, arising out of the FIR dated 09.08.2024 is accordingly interfered with. The proceedings before the learned Trial Court as a result of the charge- sheet filed in Tezpur PS Case No. 519/2024 (GR No. 1331/2024) stand quashed. This Court has been informed that the investigations in Tezpur Police Station Case No. 475/2024, arising out of the FIR dated 09.08.2024 still awaits a Final Page No.# 15/16 Form from the investigation and the prosecuting agency. The charge-sheet in Tezpur PS Case No. 519/2024 (GR No. 1331/2024) can at best be treated to supplement the further investigation and prosecution, if any, in GR Case No. 1239/2024. The information divulged by the respondent No. 7 on 30.08.2024 shall not cease to exist and would form part and parcel of the investigations being carried on with regard to Tezpur PS Case No. 475/2024 (GR No. 1239/2024). 15. On the issue raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled to be compensated for having been put to incarceration in connection with Tezpur PS Case No. 519/2024 (GR No. 1331/2024), an act which is asserted to be concerted effort on the part of the police authorities, this Court does not find any reason to reject the contention of the learned Senior Government Advocate that as on the date of arrest, there was a registered FIR against the petitioner of committing non-bailable offenses and it could not be expected of the authorities to ignore the presence of the petitioner in the police station premises on 30.08.2024. This Court further notices that in the writ petition, no specific allegations have been raised against any of the police officers made party respondents, save and except that the arrest being a result of the Second FIR, the arrest was illegal and therefore the petitioner should be compensated. It is also noticed that the notices issued on the respondent No. 6 remained un-served and the order dated 04.04.2025 of the Lawazima court to the petitioner to obtain proper instructions regarding the address of the respondent No. 6 remained unheeded by the petitioner, thus leaving the respondent No. 6 without notice of the writ petition. The matter has been taken up for disposal and in such circumstances, this Court cannot come to any findings adverse to the respondent No. 6, when he remained un-served. In Page No.# 16/16 such view of the matter, the prayer for compensation to the petitioner cannot be considered and is rejected. 16. Writ petition is disposed of. 17. No costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant