The Gauhati High Court has directed the clubbing of four FIRs arising from allegations of an approximately ₹80-crore fraud relating to a skill development programme in Assam. The allegations concerned the creation of records showing more than 20,000 fake labourers or beneficiaries, submission of allegedly false bills and food bills, and the representation that training had been conducted for 60 days even though it was allegedly conducted only for two or three days. The Court found that the allegations contained in all four FIRs were substantially identical and arose out of the same skill development programme floated by the Labour Department of the Government of Assam. It therefore held that allowing all four FIRs to proceed independently would result in unnecessary multiplicity of proceedings and could lead to conflicting findings.
The proceedings came before the High Court through a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner challenged the registration and investigation of successive FIRs by different police stations in Assam. The petitioner sought an order directing that the subsequent FIRs be clubbed with the first FIR so that the allegations arising out of the same transaction could be investigated together rather than through separate proceedings.
The allegations originated from a skill development programme floated by the Labour Department of the Government of Assam. According to the FIRs, an amount of ₹80 crore had been sanctioned for skill development training during the relevant period and had been allotted to private companies for carrying out the programme. The complaints alleged irregularities in the implementation of the programme and questioned the authenticity of the beneficiaries shown as having received training under it.
A central allegation in the complaints was that a list containing more than 20,000 fake labourers or beneficiaries had been created. According to the allegations, these persons were shown as beneficiaries of the skill development programme even though their participation in the training was questioned. The complaints also alleged that training sessions which were actually conducted for only two or three days were represented in official records as having continued for 60 days.
The complaints further alleged that fake bills and food bills were prepared and submitted in connection with the programme. These alleged documents formed part of the accusations concerning the utilisation of the funds sanctioned for the skill development initiative. The allegations relating to fake beneficiaries, the duration of training and the allegedly false bills appeared consistently in the different FIRs that subsequently came to be registered at different police stations.
The first complaint was registered and was subsequently transferred to Rangia Police Station. Thereafter, three additional FIRs were registered at different police stations in Assam. The subsequent FIRs were registered at Dispur Police Station, Tihu Police Station and Dhula Police Station. The petitioner approached the High Court contending that the four FIRs did not disclose separate transactions but repeated the same allegations relating to the same skill development programme and the same alleged acts.
The petitioner argued before the High Court that the allegations in all four FIRs were exactly the same. According to the petitioner, the persons alleged to have been involved, the companies allegedly connected with the programme and the allegations concerning fake beneficiaries and fake bills were common to the four cases. On this basis, the petitioner sought clubbing of the FIRs so that the investigation could proceed through a single case.
The State opposed the petitioner's request. Its position was that the FIRs had been lodged by different complainants who were residents of different places and that they arose from different causes of action. The State therefore resisted the contention that the subsequent FIRs should simply be treated as part of the first case. The High Court was consequently required to examine the contents of all four FIRs and determine whether they actually concerned separate incidents or the same transaction.
Justice Anjan Moni Kalita examined the first FIR and compared it with the three subsequent FIRs. The Court specifically considered the allegations recorded in each case to determine whether there were any material differences between them. After making this comparison, the Court found that the allegations contained in all four FIRs were exactly the same.
The Court noted that there was only one limited difference between the FIRs. The FIR registered at Tihu Police Station included two additional accused persons. Apart from this difference, the Court found that the allegations, the persons allegedly involved, the companies referred to in the complaints and the alleged irregularities concerning beneficiaries and bills were common to all four cases.
The two companies specifically referred to by the Court were Ajitaaksh Ventures Private Limited and Gargo Institute of Technology. The Court observed that both companies were common to all four FIRs. The allegations concerning these companies were also connected with the same skill development programme of the Labour Department of the Government of Assam.
The Court further noted that the allegation concerning the creation of more than 20,000 fake labourers or beneficiaries was common to all four FIRs. The allegation regarding the preparation of fake bills and fake food bills was also repeated in each case. Similarly, the allegation that training was conducted for only two days while records showed that it had continued for 60 days was common to the four FIRs.
After examining these similarities, the High Court concluded that the allegations related to a single skill development programme. The Court found that the four FIRs were not based on separate and distinguishable factual occurrences but were different complaints concerning the same alleged irregularities in the same programme. The Court therefore found no material difference between the cases that would justify allowing four independent investigations to proceed simultaneously.
The Court considered the principles concerning sameness of allegations and transactions. It observed that, upon a comparison of the four FIRs, there were no distinguishable facts that could justify treating them as separate cases. Although the complaints had been filed at different places and by different complainants, the substance of the allegations remained the same.
The High Court held that permitting four separate FIRs to proceed independently would amount to an abuse of the process of law. The Court also observed that continuing four investigations concerning the same allegations could result in avoidable multiplicity of proceedings, potentially produce conflicting findings and cause serious prejudice to the petitioner.
The Court accordingly directed that the earliest FIR, which had been registered at Rangia Police Station, should be treated as the principal FIR. The three subsequent FIRs registered at Dispur, Tihu and Dhula Police Stations were ordered to be clubbed with the Rangia FIR. Instead of continuing as separate criminal cases, the allegations contained in the subsequent FIRs were directed to be treated as statements under Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The Court further directed that the subsequent cases be transferred immediately to Rangia Police Station. This direction was intended to ensure that the investigation into the first FIR could proceed without delay and that the allegations contained in the subsequent complaints could form part of the investigation through the principal case rather than through separate proceedings.
The High Court's decision was based on its comparison of the actual contents of the four FIRs. The Court did not find separate factual allegations capable of establishing four independent transactions. Instead, the same alleged conduct was repeated across the complaints, including the alleged creation of more than 20,000 fake beneficiaries, the alleged submission of false bills and food bills, and the alleged representation that short-duration training had continued for 60 days.
The allegations also concerned the same two companies, Ajitaaksh Ventures Private Limited and Gargo Institute of Technology. The Court treated the common reference to these companies, along with the common allegations concerning the beneficiaries, bills and training duration, as further evidence that the FIRs arose from the same transaction. The presence of two additional accused persons in one FIR was not considered sufficient to make that FIR a separate transaction from the others.
The Court's order therefore consolidated the criminal proceedings relating to the alleged skill development fraud into a single investigation. The Rangia Police Station FIR was designated as the principal case, while the FIRs registered at Dispur, Tihu and Dhula were ordered to be clubbed with it. The contents of those subsequent FIRs were to be treated as statements under Section 162 CrPC rather than as independent FIRs requiring separate investigations.
The direction also required the immediate transfer of the subsequent cases to Rangia Police Station. The investigation was thus to proceed from the principal FIR while taking into account the material contained in the other complaints. The High Court's order addressed the procedural issue arising from the registration of multiple FIRs concerning what it found to be the same allegations and transaction.
The matter was considered by Justice Anjan Moni Kalita in Alok Sarkar v. State of Assam & Ors., registered as W.P.(Crl.) No. 43/2022. The Court's decision was recorded as 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 152. The proceedings concerned the challenge to the successive FIRs and the petitioner's request that the subsequent cases be clubbed with the earliest FIR.
The High Court ultimately found that the four FIRs contained the same allegations and concerned the same skill development programme. The fact that the complaints had been filed at different police stations and by different complainants did not, in the Court's assessment, create separate transactions because the factual allegations remained identical. The Court consequently rejected the continuation of four independent proceedings and directed consolidation of the cases.
The order records that the alleged fraud concerned ₹80 crore sanctioned for skill development training and allegations involving more than 20,000 purported beneficiaries. The complaints alleged that beneficiaries were falsely shown, training was represented as lasting substantially longer than it actually did, and bills and food bills were fabricated. These allegations formed the common factual foundation of all four FIRs.
The High Court therefore directed that the investigation proceed through the earliest FIR registered at Rangia Police Station. The subsequent FIRs registered at Dispur, Tihu and Dhula Police Stations were ordered to be clubbed with the principal FIR and treated as statements under Section 162 CrPC. The subsequent cases were also ordered to be transferred immediately to Rangia Police Station.
Thus, the Court's order brought the four criminal proceedings arising from the alleged skill-training irregularities under one investigation. The decision was founded on the Court's finding that the allegations, persons allegedly involved, companies concerned and alleged methods of fraud were common across all four FIRs and that there were no distinguishable facts warranting separate proceedings.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.