CGHC010252852025 2026:CGHC:34130-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 355 of 2025 Nitin Kumar Soni S/o Bulaki Ram Soni Aged About 31 Years R/o Harshit Vihar Colony, Urkura, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Superintendent Of Police Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Station House Officer Police Station - Khamtarai, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Agam Jain S/o Ashok Jain R/o E.W.S.-50, R.P. Nagar, Korba, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Petitioner : Shri Chandrikaditya Pandey, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Soumya Rai, Dy GA For Private Respondent : Shri Ashutosh Shukla, Advocate --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board Per R amesh Sinha, Chief Justice 05.08.2026 Heard Shri Chandrikaditya Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri Soumya Rai, learned Dy GA for the State and Shri Ashutosh Shukla, learned counsel for the private respondent. 1. Petitioner has filed this petition for the following reliefs: Wpcr 355 of 2025 2 “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner for perusal of this Hon'ble Court. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ and to quash the subsequent FIR for the same offence bearing Crime No. 670/2024 registered at Police Station – Khamtarai, District – Raipur (C.G.). 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass an order directing the respondent authorities to take further steps in the entire matter for preventing the abuse of process of law and ends of justice. 10.4 That, any other writs and direction which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case be granted to the petitioner with cost of the petition.” 2. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner seeking quashment of First Information Report bearing Crime No.670/2024 dated 18.08.2024 registered at Police Station Khamtarai, District Raipur, for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC, on the principal ground that the said FIR is a second FIR in respect of the very same occurrence for which an earlier FIR bearing Crime No.482/2024 dated 12.08.2024 had already been registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Korba for offences under Sections 120-B, 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner contends that registration of the subsequent FIR is impermissible in law and amounts to abuse of the process of law. Wpcr 355 of 2025 3 3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that respondent No.4, namely Agam Jain, initially lodged a written complaint before Police Station Civil Lines, Korba alleging that unknown persons, by impersonating him and on the strength of a forged General Power of Attorney, had fraudulently sold his land situated at Village Urkura, District Raipur to different purchasers. Pursuant thereto, FIR bearing Crime No.482/2024 dated 12.08.2024 came to be registered against the present petitioner and other accused persons for offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, which is under investigation. The petitioner asserts that he acted bonafidely as a power of attorney holder and had relied upon documents produced before the Sub-Registrar while facilitating the transactions. Thereafter, respondent No.4 submitted another complaint before the Police Station Khamtarai, District Raipur containing substantially identical allegations regarding the same land transaction, on the basis whereof, FIR bearing Crime No.670/2024 dated 18.08.2024 was registered for offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. According to the petitioner, both FIRs arise out of the same transaction, involvement of the same complainant, substantially the same accused persons and identical allegations. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has approached this Court seeking quashment of the subsequent FIR. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the second FIR is wholly illegal and unsustainable in law as it relates to the very same occurrence which is already the subject matter of Crime No.482/2024 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Korba. It is contended that once the machinery of criminal law had already been set into motion, registration of another FIR on identical facts is impermissible and would expose the petitioner Wpcr 355 of 2025 4 to parallel investigations for the same transaction. It is further submitted that the allegations contained in both the FIRs satisfy the "test of sameness", inasmuch as the complainant, the subject matter of dispute, the alleged forged General Power of Attorney and the fraudulent sale transactions are identical. Reliance has been placed upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC 181, and other subsequent judgments to contend that a second FIR relating to the same transaction is liable to be quashed. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State submitted that although, upon comparison of the two FIRs, it was found that they arise out of the same transaction/occurrence, the allegations made therein are not identical and relate to distinct facets of the transaction. It was pointed out that the first FIR bearing Crime No. 482/2024 dated 12.08.2024, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Korba, contains allegations of cheating, impersonation and creation/use of forged documents against the present petitioner and other accused persons, whereas the subsequent FIR bearing Crime No. 670/2024 dated 18.08.2024, registered at Police Station Khamtarai, Raipur, contains allegations under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC arising from the same transaction but concerning different acts and allegations. The State, therefore, submitted that merely because the genesis of both FIRs is the same transaction, the subsequent FIR cannot be mechanically treated as impermissible if it discloses distinct allegations requiring investigation; however, the investigation in both matters may be appropriately coordinated in accordance with law so as to avoid duplication or conflicting findings. Wpcr 355 of 2025 5 6. Learned State counsel further submits that in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Surendra Singh Rathore (SLP (Criminal) No.16358 of 2024, decided on 19.02.2025), after applying the "test of sameness", the investigating agency has concluded that the investigation ought to continue only in Crime No.482/2024 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Korba. It is, therefore, submitted that the authorities may be permitted to proceed with the investigation in the first FIR alone. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. The sole issue that falls for consideration is, whether interference under Article 226 of the Constitution is warranted for quashing FIR bearing Crime No.670/2024 registered at Police Station Khamtarai on the ground that an earlier FIR in respect of the same occurrence already stands registered. 9. The legal position governing multiple FIRs is no longer res integra. In the matter of T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC 181, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that there cannot ordinarily be a second FIR in respect of the same cognizable offence or the same occurrence giving rise to one or more cognizable offences. The principle has subsequently been explained and reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by evolving the "test of sameness", namely, whether the subsequent FIR relates to the same incident, transaction and occurrence or whether it pertains to a distinct and separate offence. Likewise, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Babubhai v. State of Gujarat, (2010) 12 SCC 254, explained the "test of sameness" to determine the permissibility of a subsequent FIR and held as under:- Wpcr 355 of 2025 6 21. In such a case the court has to examine the facts and circumstances giving rise to both the FIRs and the test of sameness is to be applied to find out whether both the FIRs relate to the same incident in respect of the same occurrence or are in regard to the incidents which are two or more parts of the same transaction. If the answer is in the affirmative, the second FIR is liable to be quashed. However, in case, the contrary is proved, where the version in the second FIR is different and they are in respect of the two different incidents/crimes, the second FIR is permissible. In case in respect of the same incident the accused in the first FIR comes forward with a different version or counterclaim, investigation on both the FIRs has to be conducted. 10. Recently, in the matter of State of Rajasthan v. Surendra Singh Rathore (SLP (Criminal) No.16358 of 2024, decided on 19.02.2025), the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that the maintainability of a subsequent FIR has to be tested on the touchstone of the "test of sameness". Where both FIRs relate to the same transaction, the subsequent FIR cannot ordinarily be permitted to continue. 11. Having considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record, it is not in dispute that the first FIR bearing Crime No.482/2024 dated 12.08.2024 was registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Korba, on the complaint of respondent No.4 alleging that certain persons, by impersonating him and using a forged General Power of Attorney, had fraudulently dealt with and sold his land situated at Village Urkura, District Raipur. The subsequent FIR bearing Crime No.670/2024 dated 18.08.2024 was registered at Police Station Khamtarai, Raipur, in relation to the same land transaction and involves substantially the same parties and foundational facts. Wpcr 355 of 2025 7 Thus, there is a clear nexus between the two FIRS and, to that extent, both proceedings arise from the same transaction. However, on a comparative examination of the allegations, it cannot be said that the allegations in the subsequent FIR are a mere verbatim or complete reproduction of the allegations contained in the first FIR. The subsequent FIR contains allegations concerning certain other acts and facets of the same transaction, which may require examination during investigation. Therefore, merely on the ground that the two FIRs arise out of the same transaction, the subsequent FIR cannot, at this stage, be held to be wholly without jurisdiction. 12. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice padma Digitally signed by V PADMAVATHI Date: 2026.08.13 09:57:05 +0530