Page No.# 1/16 GAHC010243242019 2026:GAU-AS:11582 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/7580/2019 MANOJ KUMAR SAHU SON OF LATE CHANDRA MADHAV SAHU, RESIDENT OF BORJHAR, GUWAHATI- 781015, DISTRICT- KAMRUP(M), ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, HOME DEPARTMENT, DISPUR- 781006, ASSAM. 2:THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH 2ND BLOCK GROUND FLOOR ROOM NO. 185 A.P. SECRETARIAT OFFICE VELAGAPUDI GUNTUR PIN- 522503 ANDHRA PRADESH. 3:THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE VISAKHAPATNAM POLICE BARRACKS SURYABAGH VISAKHAPATNAM PIN- 530020 ANDHRA PRADESH. 4:SAMARJYAM KOTA WIFE OF SRI K. SRINAVASA RAO OF 1ST FLOOR Page No.# 2/16 LEZEND APARTMENTS GAJUWAKA VISHAKHAPATNAM CITY PIN- 530026 ANDHRA PRADESH Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P N GOSWAMI, MR. I BORTHAKUR,MR. D GOGOI,MR. I KALITA,MR. K P PATHAK,MR. R R Gogoi Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI ORDER 14.08.2026 Heard Mr. I. Borthakur, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. J. Talukdar, learned Senior Counsel/Additional Senior Government Advocate, assisted by Mr. P. K. Medhi, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State respondent. 2. None appears for respondent No. 4 despite service having been recorded by this Court on 20.07.2026 as deemed to have been completed. 3. By way of the present writ petition filed under Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned F.I.R. being Gajuwaka Police Station Case No. 263 dated 18.05.2019, registered under Sections 498-A/506 of the Indian Penal Code, lodged by respondent No. 4 before the Gajuwaka Police Station, Visakhapatnam City. 4. The brief facts of the case, as stated in the writ petition, are that, at the relevant point of time, the petitioner was serving as Chief Aircraft Engineer, Page No.# 3/16 Pawan Hans Helicopters Ltd., at Lokpriya Gopinath Bordoloi International Airport, Guwahati. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent No. 4 had been blackmailing, extorting and abusing him, on account of which he, along with his wife, had lodged F.I.R.s at Mumbai as well as Guwahati. 5. It is further stated that on 23.04.2019, respondent No. 4 came to Guwahati and attempted to extort further money from the petitioner, but the attempt was thwarted due to the intervention of his wife and mother. Thereafter, respondent No. 4 lodged an F.I.R. at Azara Police Station against the petitioner and his family members. In connection with the said F.I.R., anticipatory bail was granted to the petitioner and his family members by this Court. Upon completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer, having found no sufficient evidence or witnesses to substantiate the allegations, submitted a Final Report. 6. It is the specific case of the petitioner that respondent No. 4 during the course of the investigation of the first F.I.R., lodged the impugned second F.I.R. at Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh, containing allegations relating to incidents which had allegedly occurred at Guwahati. The present writ petition has accordingly been filed seeking quashing of the said F.I.R. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that both the F.I.R.s lodged by respondent No. 4 substantially relate to the same alleged occurrence and that, therefore, the subsequent F.I.R. is not maintainable. It is contended that the earlier F.I.R. lodged by respondent No. 4 before the Azara Police Station had already been investigated and closed by submission of a Final Report and that the subsequent F.I.R. is an attempt to re-agitate substantially the same allegations before the police authorities exercising a Page No.# 4/16 different territorial jurisdiction. 8. Learned counsel further submits that the allegations contained in the impugned F.I.R. relate to incidents which allegedly occurred at Guwahati and, therefore, the police authorities at Visakhapatnam had no territorial nexus with the alleged offences. It is submitted that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the registration of the impugned F.I.R. at Visakhapatnam is an abuse of the process of law. 9. In support of his submission that there cannot be two F.I.R.s in respect of the same occurrence, learned counsel relies upon the decision of the coordinate Bench of this Court in Binod Das and Others v. The State of Assam and Another, in Crl.Pet./206/2018. In support of his submission regarding territorial jurisdiction and the power of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, learned counsel relies upon the decision of the coordinate Bench in Candid Drug Distributors and Others v. The State of Assam and Others, in WP(C) No. 2779/2013. 10. Learned Additional Senior Government Advocate submits that an earlier F.I.R. had been lodged by respondent No. 4 before the Azara Police Station and that, upon investigation, the same was closed by submission of a Final Report. He further submits that prior thereto, the petitioner and his wife had also lodged F.I.R.s before the Azara Police Station alleging harassment by respondent No. 4 and that the said F.I.R.s were also investigated and closed by submission of Final Reports. 11. Learned Additional Senior Government Advocate further places before this Court the instructions received from the office of the Assistant Inspector Page No.# 5/16 General of Police (W&S). The said instructions are taken on record and marked as “X”. 12. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having perused the materials available on record, it appears that on 12.04.2019 the petitioner had lodged an F.I.R. before the Azara Police Station stating, inter alia, that he had been serving, since 12.03.2018, as Chief Aircraft Engineer, Pawan Hans Helicopters Ltd., at Lokpriya Gopinath Bordoloi International Airport, Guwahati. It was further stated that respondent No. 4 had been appointed as a Baggage Screener on contractual basis and that, during the relevant period, she had developed a close friendship with the petitioner. 13. It was further alleged that respondent No. 4 was frequently involved in arguments with her colleagues and that a disciplinary proceeding had thereafter been initiated against her. On the basis of the findings of the disciplinary proceeding, her contractual engagement with Pawan Hans Helicopters Ltd. was not renewed. According to the petitioner, respondent No. 4 believed that he was personally responsible for her removal, as he was one of the members of the disciplinary proceedings committee constituted by the management. It was alleged that she thereafter threatened the petitioner with physical harm and threatened to damage his career and further blackmailed and extorted money from him. 14. On the basis of the said F.I.R., Azara Police Station Case No. 244/2019 was registered under Sections 294/506/384/420 of the IPC and was investigated. Upon completion of investigation, including examination of the informant, witnesses and the F.I.R.-named accused/respondent No. 4, no prima facie evidence was found against respondent No. 4, except an incident Page No.# 6/16 of scuffle between the petitioner’s wife and respondent No. 4. The case was accordingly returned in Final Report under Section 352 of the IPC, vide Final Report No. 360 dated 31.08.2019. 15. It further appears that on 24.04.2019 respondent No. 4 lodged an F.I.R. before the Azara Police Station alleging that on 23.04.2019, when she had come to Guwahati and was staying at Room No. 114 of the NEHU Guest House at SOS Road, Azara, she wanted to speak to the petitioner alone on the balcony of the said guest house. According to her, she was forcibly taken to the petitioner’s room where two ladies, namely, Abha (petitioner’s wife) and the petitioner’s mother Subhadra, caught hold of her and attempted to kill her by folding her hands behind her back. She alleged that she raised an alarm and that, upon hearing her cries, some persons from the guest house came forward and rescued her. 16. The said F.I.R. was registered as Azara Police Station Case No. 266/2019 under Sections 342/323/307/506/294/34 of the IPC and was investigated. Upon completion of investigation, including recording of the statements of the informant/respondent No. 4, other witnesses and the accused persons, no sufficient evidence was found to substantiate the allegations. The case was accordingly returned in Final Report No. 155 dated 30.05.2019. 17. It further appears that respondent No. 4 after filing the said F.I.R. dated 24.04.2019 at Azara Police Station, simultaneously lodged the second F.I.R. before the Gajuwaka Police Station, Visakhapatnam, on 18.09.2019, which is impugned in the present proceedings, alleging that the petitioner, after marrying her at Guwahati, used to torture and harass her. It is further alleged that, after she returned to Visakhapatnam, the petitioner continued to Page No.# 7/16 mentally harass her and, when she attempted to contact him over telephone, he allegedly stated that she was not his wife. It is further alleged that he thereafter stopped communicating with her, blocked her telephone number, deserted her, belittled her and subjected her to mental and physical torture and was living with another lady. 18. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the impugned F.I.R. being Gajuwaka Police Station Case No. 263 dated 18.05.2019 came to be registered under Sections 498-A/506 of the IPC. 19. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to notice the settled principles governing exercise of the power of the High Court to quash an F.I.R. In State of Haryana and Others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Others, reported in AIR 1992 SC 604, the Apex Court enumerated the principles in which the extraordinary power of the High Court may be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of law. The relevant principles read as follows: “(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case Page No.# 8/16 against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 20. Thus, amongst the principles enunciated in Bhajan Lal (supra), the High Court, while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction, may examine whether the allegations made in the F.I.R., even if taken at their face value, disclose the commission of an offence. This Court may also interfere where the allegations are so inherently improbable that no prudent person could reach a conclusion that there exists sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. Likewise, where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide or is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance upon the accused, this Court is entitled to interfere to prevent Page No.# 9/16 abuse of the process of law. 21. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner and respondent No. 4 had been involved in a series of disputes which had already resulted in criminal proceedings before the Azara Police Station. It is also apparent from the materials on record that the F.I.R. lodged by respondent No. 4 at Azara Police Station on 24.04.2019 had been investigated and a Final Report was submitted on 30.05.2019 for want of sufficient evidence. 22. The impugned F.I.R. though lodged at Gajuwaka Police Station on 18.05.2019, i.e., prior to submission of the aforesaid Final Report, the subsequent submission of the Final Report is a circumstance which has to be considered along with the nature and substance of the allegations contained in both the proceedings. 23. The principle relating to registration of a second F.I.R. in respect of the same occurrence is well settled. In T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, reported in (2001) 6 SCC 181, the Apex Court held that there cannot ordinarily be a second F.I.R. in respect of the same cognizable offence or the same occurrence. The principle has subsequently been explained by the Apex Court in Babubhai v. State of Gujarat, reported in (2010) 12 SCC 254, wherein it was held that where two F.I.R.s relate to the same occurrence or form part of the same transaction, the subsequent F.I.R. would not be maintainable. 24. The coordinate Bench of this Court in Binod Das (supra), upon examination of two F.I.R.s, similarly held that where both F.I.R.s relate to the same occurrence, minor variations in the narrative would not alter the character of the proceedings, as such variations may merely highlight different Page No.# 10/16 facets of the same transaction. 25. The aforesaid principle has to be applied by examining the substance of the allegations and not merely the manner in which the subsequent F.I.R. has been drafted. 26. In the present case, a careful reading of the earlier F.I.R. lodged by respondent No. 4 at Azara Police Station and the impugned F.I.R. lodged at Gajuwaka Police Station shows that both arise out of the matrimonial relationship claimed by respondent No. 4 with the petitioner and substantially relate to the same period of matrimonial discord. 27. The earlier F.I.R. lodged at Azara Police Station specifically alleged that, on 23.04.2019, respondent No. 4 had come to Guwahati and that the petitioner and his family members had allegedly confined and assaulted her and attempted to cause her death. The impugned F.I.R., though couched in terms of matrimonial cruelty and criminal intimidation, refers to the petitioner’s alleged conduct towards respondent No. 4 during the period when, according to her own version, they were residing together at Guwahati and to the subsequent deterioration of their relationship. 28. It is true that the allegations in the impugned F.I.R. are not verbatim identical to those contained in the earlier F.I.R. lodged at Azara Police Station. However, the test is not whether the allegations are word-for-word identical. The relevant consideration is whether they form part of the same transaction or whether the subsequent F.I.R. discloses a genuinely distinct occurrence giving rise to an independent offence. Page No.# 11/16 29. On the facts of the present case, the allegations contained in the impugned F.I.R. substantially overlap with the allegations and circumstances which had already been placed before the investigating agency at Guwahati. The subsequent F.I.R. cannot, therefore, be viewed in isolation from the earlier criminal proceedings arising out of the same relationship and the same sequence of events. 30. There is another aspect of the matter which also assumes significance. The allegations in the impugned F.I.R., when read as a whole, disclose that the principal acts constituting the alleged cruelty and harassment are stated to have taken place at Guwahati. The F.I.R. has nevertheless been lodged at Gajuwaka Police Station, Visakhapatnam. 31. At this stage, it is necessary to bear in mind that lack of territorial jurisdiction of the police station, by itself, ordinarily does not furnish a ground for quashing an F.I.R. if the allegations disclose a cognizable offence. The investigating agency may investigate the matter and, if it finds that the offence was committed outside its territorial jurisdiction, proceed in accordance with law by forwarding the case to the police station having jurisdiction. 32. However, the issue of territorial nexus assumes significance in the present case when considered together with the other circumstances emerging from the record, particularly the previous criminal proceedings between the parties at Guwahati, the investigation thereof and the substantial overlap between the allegations made therein and those contained in the impugned F.I.R. Page No.# 12/16 33. In Navinchandra N. Majithia v. State of Maharashtra and Others, reported in (2000) 7 SCC 640, the Apex Court considered the scope of Article 226(2) of the Constitution in the context of criminal proceedings instituted outside the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court. The Apex Court held that the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226(2) depends upon whether the cause of action, wholly or in part, has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court. This Court further recognised that where allegations of mala fide institution of criminal proceedings at an inappropriate forum are raised, the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court is not excluded. 34. The coordinate Bench of this Court in Candid Drug Distributors (supra), after considering the provisions of Article 226(2) and the law laid down by the Apex Court in Navinchandra N. Majithia (supra), held that the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court is sufficiently wide to prevent abuse of the criminal process, remedy jurisdictional errors and secure the ends of justice. 35. In Asit Bhattacharjee v. Hanuman Prasad Ojha, reported in (2007) 5 SCC 786, the Apex Court, while considering the question of territorial jurisdiction in the context of criminal proceedings, reiterated that if the investigating officer, upon an examination of the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, arrives at the conclusion that the alleged crime was not committed within his territorial jurisdiction, the F.I.R. may be forwarded to the police station having jurisdiction. 36. The aforesaid decisions make it clear that territorial jurisdiction of a police station and the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court are distinct Page No.# 13/16 considerations. The mere fact that an F.I.R. has been registered outside the territorial limits within which the alleged offence occurred would not, in every case, justify quashing of the F.I.R. However, where the absence of territorial nexus forms part of a larger factual matrix demonstrating that the criminal proceeding has been instituted for an ulterior purpose, the same may be taken into consideration by the constitutional Court. 37. In the present case, the material available on record indicates that the parties had already set the criminal law in motion against each other at Guwahati. The allegations made by respondent No. 4 in the earlier F.I.R. at Azara Police Station had been investigated and the case had culminated in submission of a Final Report for want of sufficient evidence. The impugned F.I.R., although registered under Sections 498-A/506 of the IPC and containing allegations of matrimonial cruelty and intimidation, substantially relates to the same matrimonial relationship and to events which, on the face of the F.I.R. itself, have their principal nexus with Guwahati. 38. This Court is conscious of the fact that submission of a Final Report does not, by itself, create an absolute bar against institution of a subsequent criminal proceeding if the subsequent proceeding is based upon a genuinely distinct offence or a distinct transaction. Likewise, a person cannot be precluded from approaching the police merely because an earlier investigation did not result in a charge-sheet. 39. However, the criminal process cannot be permitted to be repeatedly invoked in respect of substantially the same transaction merely by presenting the same set of circumstances in a different narrative or by introducing additional allegations relating to the very same period and events, particularly Page No.# 14/16 when the earlier allegations had already been subjected to investigation. This Court has to examine the substance of the allegations and the total circumstances in which the subsequent proceeding has been instituted. 40. In the present case, upon a cumulative consideration of the materials on record, this Court is of the view that the impugned F.I.R. substantially overlaps with the allegations and circumstances which had already been brought before the investigating agency at Guwahati. The registration of the subsequent F.I.R. at Visakhapatnam, despite the principal factual foundation of the allegations being connected with Guwahati, further assumes significance in the overall circumstances of the case. Even otherwise, a careful reading of both the F.I.R.s lodged by respondent No. 4 makes it abundantly clear that the allegations contained therein substantially relate back to the same period and arise out of the same matrimonial relationship and circumstances. The subsequent F.I.R. introduces additional allegations in respect of the very same period which had already been the subject matter of the earlier F.I.R. and investigation. The introduction of such additional allegation at a subsequent stage, in the backdrop of the earlier proceedings, renders the subsequent version highly improbable and lends support to the contention that the impugned F.I.R. has been instituted with an ulterior motive. 41. Moreover, during the course of investigation of the F.I.R. lodged by the petitioner it has clearly emerged that the petitioner was married to another woman. These circumstances assume significance when the allegations contained in the two F.I.R.s are read together. Even the impugned F.I.R. itself discloses that when respondent No. 4 attempted to contact the petitioner over telephone after returning to Vishakhapatnam, he allegedly declined to Page No.# 15/16 acknowledge her as his wife, there after stopped communicating with her and blocked her telephone number. More importantly, even if the allegations made in the second F.I.R. are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, they do not disclose any distinct occurrence constituting an independent offence. These circumstances, considered cumulatively with the previous criminal proceedings between the parties, the investigation thereof and the substantial overlap between the allegations contained in the two proceedings, persuade this Court to hold that the subsequent proceedings is manifestly attended with malafide and has been instituted with an ulterior motive to harass and pressurize the petitioner. 42. Taking the entirety of the circumstances into consideration, this Court is inclined to hold that the impugned proceeding is not a bona fide and independent invocation of the criminal law in respect of a distinct occurrence. Rather, the same is a subsequent attempt to re-agitate substantially the same dispute by introducing additional allegations relating to the same period and circumstances which had already been subjected to investigation. The proceeding, on the face of it, appears to be manifestly attended with mala fide. 43. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case noted hereinabove, this Court is satisfied that continuation of the impugned proceeding would totally amount to an abuse of the process of law and would result in unnecessary harassment of the petitioner. The case, therefore, falls within the parameters of the principles laid down in Bhajan Lal (supra), warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Page No.# 16/16 44. Accordingly, the F.I.R. registered as Gajuwaka Police Station Case No. 263 dated 18.05.2019, under Sections 498-A/506 of the Indian Penal Code, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed and set aside. 45. The writ petition stands allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant