Second FIR in Fake Lottery Case Not Barred Where GST Evasion and Forgery Allegations Differ: High Court:

Second FIR in Fake Lottery Case Not Barred Where GST Evasion and Forgery Allegations Differ: High Court

The petitioners approached the High Court seeking quashing of FIR dated 13.03.2023 registered at North Police Station, Kohima, under various provisions of the IPC and the Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998. They contended that an earlier FIR had already been registered at Hare Street Police Station, Kolkata on similar allegations relating to fake lottery tickets and therefore, the second FIR was barred in law.

The record revealed that the investigation in the Kohima case alleged that the accused forged the official logo of Nagaland State Lotteries, forged the signature of the Director of Nagaland State Lotteries, and circulated fake paper lottery tickets.

Issue Before Court: Whether the second FIR registered at Kohima North Police Station relating to fake lottery tickets and GST evasion was liable to be quashed on the ground that an earlier FIR had already been lodged in Kolkata concerning similar allegations.

HC Ruled: The Gauhati High Court held that the second FIR could not be quashed. The Court observed that although the two FIRs arose from related circumstances, the Kohima FIR disclosed additional and distinct allegations including forgery of the Nagaland State Lottery logo, forging the Director’s signature, and causing financial loss to the Government of Nagaland through fake lottery operations and tax evasion.

The Court held that the Kolkata FIR concerned fake lottery ticket sales and GST evasion affecting buyers, whereas the Kohima FIR involved additional allegations of forging the Nagaland State Lottery logo and Director’s signature, causing revenue loss to the State, making the two FIRs legally distinct. It treated the allegations of GST evasion as a serious prima facie factor justifying continuation of the criminal proceedings. Since the second FIR revealed a wider range of offences and a different grievance raised by a different complainant, the “test of sameness” was not satisfied. Therefore, the Court refused to quash the FIR and allowed the criminal proceedings to continue.

To Read Full Judgment, Download PDF Given Below