Page No.# 1/7 GAHC020006602026 2026:GAU-NL:439 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : Crl. Pet./29/2026 SHRI TALIMBO ZELIANG S/O LATE ZINGLUNGBO, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF NEW JALUKIE, PEREN, NAGALAND VERSUS THE STATE OF NAGALAND REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Advocate for the Petitioner : A. SOPHIE, MEDOKERHE,PHENIANG LUSHING Advocate for the Respondent : P.P, NAGALAND, BEFORE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER ORDER Date : 25.08.2026 1. The instant application under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 has been preferred by the Petitioner praying for quashing the Second FIR dated 05.07.2023 in connection with Phek PS Case No. 0004/2023, the Charge-sheet No. 0005/2024 dated 07.08.2024, the supplementary Page No.# 2/7 Charge-sheet, the Cognizance order dated 04.10.2024 and the connected criminal proceedings in respect of GR Case No. 35/2023 in connection with Phek PS Case No. 0004/2023. 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. A. Sophie as well as Mr. Veto V. Zhimomi, learned Public Prosecutor for the State of Nagaland. 3. The case of the Petitioner herein is that upon a complaint report dated 05.07.2023, an FIR was lodged before the Officer-in-Charge, Kezocha Police Station, Kohima stating that upon receiving information from reliable sources regarding illegal transportation of ammunitions from Phek district an MVCP was conducted, whereby the Petitioner, Talimbo Zeliang, of DEF Phek was arrested and prohibited ammunition was seized from his possession. Thereafter, a case was registered being Kezocha PS Case No. 0005/2023 under Section 120B, IPC read with Section 25(1A), Arms Act, 1959. 4. It is the case of the Petitioner that he was arrested on 05.07.2023 and subsequently vide order dated 26.07.2023 the Petitioner was detained under the National Security Act, 1980. Subsequently, vide order dated 06.12.2023, the Division Bench quashed the detention order dated 26.07.2023 and the Petitioner was released on bail vide order dated 14.12.2023 by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kohima, Nagaland. 5. It is also the Petitioner’s case that during interrogation he gave information that the 200 (Two Hundred) rounds of live ammunitions seized from his possession were purchased from Hav. Eshenthung Jami of DEF, Phek. Thereafter, the Second suo motu FIR dated 05.07.2023 was lodged at Phek Police Station and registered as Phek PS Case No. Page No.# 3/7 0004/2023 under Sections 381/409/120B read with Section 25(1)(a) and (h) of the Arms Act, 1959. Further, the Petitioner was also shown arrested in the Phek P.S. Case No. 0004/2023. 6. The learned counsel for the Petitioner states that upon completion of investigation the Investigating Agency filed its Charge-sheet No. 0005/2024 dated 07.08.2024 in connection with Phek PS Case No. 0004/2023 and thereafter a supplementary Charge-sheet was also submitted. Upon receiving the Charge-sheet the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Phek, Nagaland took cognizance vide order dated 04.10.2024 and issued summons to the Accused/Petitioner to face trial and the case is now at the stage of framing of charges. However, till date the Investigating Agency has not filed any charge-sheet in connection with the First FIR dated 05.07.2023 of GR Case No. 95/2023 in the Kezocha PS Case No. 0005/2023. 7. Being aggrieved the Petitioner is before this Court praying for quashing of the suo motu Second FIR dated 05.07.2023 and the connected subsequent proceedings on the ground that: i. The Second FIR dated 05.07.2023 was lodged and registered at the Phek Police Station on the basis of information received from the statement of Accused/Petitioner, who was arrested and against whom FIR dated 05.07.2023 was registered at the Kezocha Police Station and the same is evident from the FIR lodged and registered at Phek PS and the subsequent Charge-sheet dated 0005/2024 dated 07.08.2024. ii. The Second FIR dated 05.07.2023 which was lodged and registered at the Phek Police Station is in connection with cognizable offence Page No.# 4/7 alleged to have been committed in the course of the same transaction in connection with the First FIR, which was lodged at the Kezocha Police Station. iii. Investigation was initiated in the First FIR dated 05.07.2023 registered at the Kezocha Police Station and in that connection, the Petitioner was also detained under National Security Act, 1980 and as such fresh investigation on the basis of the Second FIR registered at the Phek Police Station and the subsequent filing of the Charge- sheet and the cognizance taken by the Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Phek is illegal. 8. Learned counsel for the Petitioner in respect of his submission has relied on the case of Babubhai & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors., reported in (2010) 12 SCC 254. By referring to the said judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, learned counsel submits that while dealing with a case in respect of the same cognizable offence and the same occurrence, two FIRs cannot be lodged and it was held that there can be no second FIR and no fresh investigation on receipt of every subsequent information in respect of the same cognizable offence from the same occurrence giving rise to one or more cognizable offences. The investigating agency has to proceed only on the first information about the commission of a cognizable offence which is first entered in the police station diary by the officer-in-charge under Section 158 of the CrPC. The Supreme Court also went on to say that even after submission of the report under Section 173(2), CrPC, if the investigating officer comes across any other information pertaining to the same incident, he can make further investigation, but it is desirable that he must take the leave of the court Page No.# 5/7 and forward the further evidence, if any, with further report or reports under Section 173(8) of the CrPC. In case the officer receives more than one piece of information in respect of the same incident involving one or more than one cognizable offence such information cannot be treated as an FIR as it would, in effect, be a second FIR and the same is not in conformity with the scheme of the CrPC. 9. In view of the submissions made hereinabove, the learned counsel for the Petitioner has prayed for quashing the impugned Second FIR dated 05.07.2023 lodged at Phek Police Station as Phek PS Case No. 0004/2023, the Charge-sheet No. 0005/2024 dated 07.08.2024, the supplementary Charge-sheet, the Cognizance order dated 04.10.2024 and the connected criminal proceedings in respect of GR Case No. 35/2023 in connection with Phek PS Case No. 0004/2023. 10. Learned Public Prosecutor, Mr. Veto V. Zhimomi appearing for the State Respondent has fairly submitted that the law is well settled that a second FIR in respect of the same occurrence cannot be initiated. However, he prays that some costs may be imposed upon the Petitioner as the Investigating Agency had spent time and resources in investigating the case in connection with the Second FIR at Phek Police Station and the Petitioner has approached this Court only at this belated stage after the Charge-sheet has already been submitted and the cognizance has already been taken by the trial court. 11. I have duly considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings in detail as well as the trial court records which have been produced. The principle of law laid down in the case of T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC 181 is that Page No.# 6/7 there cannot ordinarily be a second FIR in respect of the same cognizable offence arising out of the same occurrence/incident. The second information received should ordinarily be treated as a statement or information in the investigation of the first FIR. The Supreme Court held that “there can be no second FIR and no fresh investigation on receipt of every subsequent information in respect of the same cognizable offence or same occurrence giving rise to one or more cognizable offences”. The Supreme Court subsequently in the case of Babubhai (Supra) also examined a case where the two FIRs concerned relate to the same incident, occurrence or incidents having two or more parts of the same transaction. If it is found to be so, the Supreme Court held that the second FIR is ordinarily liable to be quashed. 12. A second FIR is not barred where the evidence is different and the facts constitute a distinct transaction. In the present case, this Court upon going through the records has observed that the FIR lodged at the Kezocha Police Station relates to the same transaction, i.e., illegal procurement of ammunitions from the State Armory and involvement of the accused persons in the said transaction and that the accused persons are involved in the same offence arising out of the same transaction. Upon examining the entire facts and circumstances giving rise to both the FIRs by Kezocha Police Station as well as at the Phek Police Station, it is evidently clear that both the FIRs relate to the same incident and are part of the same transaction. 13. In view of the settled position of law, the impugned Second FIR dated 05.07.2023 leading to Phek PS Case No. 0004/2023, the Charge- sheet No. 0005/2024 dated 07.08.2024, the supplementary Charge-sheet, Page No.# 7/7 the Cognizance order dated 04.10.2024 and the connected criminal proceedings in respect of GR Case No. 35/2023 in connection with Phek PS Case No. 0004/2023 are quashed and set aside. However, it is made clear that the Investigating Agency is at liberty to proceed with the investigation in the GR Case No. 95/2023 in connection with Kezocha Police Station Case No. 0005/2023. 14. However, having regard to the fact that the Petitioner herein has approached this Court at a belated stage, this Court is of the view that precious time and resources of the Investigating Agency have been utilized in the investigation of the Phek Police Station Case No. 0004/2023 and accordingly, costs of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) is imposed on the Petitioner and the same shall be deposited before the Registry of this Court to be disbursed to the High Court Bar Association. 15. With the above directions, the petition stands disposed of. The trial court records may be sent back. JUDGE Comparing Assistant