Tripura HC Refuses to Quash Second FIR Where Daughter's Complaint Added Distinct Outraging-of-Modesty Allegation
The High Court of Tripura dismissed a Section 482 petition seeking to quash a second FIR, holding that the two complaints disclosed different subject matter and that the accused had approached the court at a belated stage.
The High Court of Tripura, in a judgment delivered on 4 May 2026, dismissed a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by three accused persons seeking to quash one of two FIRs arising from an assault on 14 February 2017 at Barjala, West Agartala. Justice Biswajit Palit, sitting singly, held that the two FIRs did not share identical subject matter: the first, lodged by the father of the family, alleged wrongful restraint and grievous hurt, while the second, lodged by his daughter, additionally alleged outraging of her modesty. The court also found that the petitioners had waited until one of the cases reached the argument stage before approaching the High Court, and directed that both cases be tried together by the same Special Court to avoid conflicting decisions.
The Two FIRs and the Dispute Before the Court
The incident occurred on 14 February 2017 at around 10:35 am. Subhash Ch. Biswas (respondent No.3) alleged that while returning home from school on his bicycle, he was chased and struck on the head with a wooden stick by Kaliprasad Sutradhar and Dipali Rani Sutradhar, and then further assaulted by all three petitioners. He lodged a complaint at Ramnagar TOP, which was forwarded to West Agartala Police Station and registered as West Agartala P.S. Case No.13 of 2017 under Sections 341, 325 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Although the body of the FIR bore the date 14.02.2017, the case was actually registered on 17 February 2017.
On the same date, Aditi Biswas (respondent No.2), the daughter of Subhash Ch. Biswas, lodged a separate complaint at the Women Police Station, Agartala. She stated that she had heard sounds from outside her home, came to the road, and found the accused persons attacking her father. When she intervened, the accused persons assaulted her and outraged her modesty. This complaint was registered on 14 February 2017 itself as West Agartala Women P.S. Case No.10 of 2017 under Sections 325, 354 and 34 IPC.
The case arising from the daughter's FIR was eventually committed to the Sessions Court. By an order dated 8 March 2019 of the J.M. First Class Court No.6, Agartala, it was committed and is now pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Court No.5 as Special (SC/ST) Case No.01 of 2019 (PRC WP 180 of 2017). Charges under Section 325/354 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 3(1)(ii)(x) and (xi) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 were framed in that case. The father's case, PRC(WP) 248 of 2017, had charges framed under Sections 341/325 read with Section 34 IPC and had reached the stage of hearing of arguments.
The three petitioners — Smt. Dipali Rani Sutradhar, her son Sri Kaliprasad Sutradhar, and her husband Sri Madhusudhan Sutradhar, all residents of Barjala — filed Crl.P.No.07 of 2025 seeking to quash the father's FIR, i.e. PRC(WP) 248 of 2017, and to be permitted to cross-examine prosecution witnesses in the Special (SC/ST) case.
The Legal Issue: When Can a Second FIR Be Quashed?
Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Anupam Pal, argued that since both FIRs arose from the same incident, permitting two separate prosecutions was impermissible in law. He relied primarily on the Supreme Court's decision in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala & Ors., (2001) 6 SCC 181, which held that a second FIR in respect of the same cognizable offence or the same occurrence is not permissible under the scheme of the Code and amounts to an abuse of the statutory power of investigation. He also placed reliance on Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr., (2013) 6 SCC 348, where the Supreme Court reiterated that a second FIR for the same offence or different offences committed in the course of the same transaction violates Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Public Prosecutor, Mr. Raju Datta, and counsel for respondents No.2 and 3, Mr. Rana Gopal Chakraborty, opposed the petition. They submitted that although multiple FIRs for the same incident are generally impermissible, the subject matter of each FIR here was different. Mr. Chakraborty further pointed out that the father's FIR was at the argument stage and the daughter's case was at the evidence-recording stage, with four prosecution witnesses already examined.
How the Court Reasoned
Justice Palit examined the text of both FIRs in detail. The father's FIR described an assault on him while he was cycling home. The daughter's FIR described the same assault on her father but went further: she alleged that when she came to the road and intervened, the accused persons also assaulted her and outraged her modesty. The court observed that the story in the father's FIR was “partially admitted” by the daughter, who made additional allegations of outraging of modesty.
The court found that the sequence of events mattered. When the father was being assaulted, the daughter arrived on hearing the commotion, and it was at that point that the alleged outraging of modesty occurred. This meant the daughter's complaint was not simply a repetition of the father's complaint but disclosed a distinct wrong against a different complainant.
The court then applied the framework from Anju Chaudhary v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., (2013) 6 SCC 384, which held that while there cannot be two FIRs for the same offence, a second FIR is permissible where the incident is separate, or where the subsequent crime is of such magnitude that it does not fall within the ambit and scope of the first FIR. The court also referred to State of Rajasthan v. Surendra Singh Rathore, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 358, which recognised that even where two FIRs arise from the same set of circumstances, a second FIR is permissible if the ambit of the two FIRs is different.
Applying the four-step test for quashing laid down by the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.3831 of 2025 (arising from SLP (Crl.) No.11642/2019), the court found that the material relied upon by the petitioners did not satisfy the required standard. The subject matters of the two FIRs were not the same: the father's FIR contained no allegation of outraging of modesty, while the daughter's FIR did. The court therefore held that it could not be said, even prima facie, that the second FIR ought to be quashed.
The court also took note of the delay. The petitioners had not approached the High Court earlier, either to seek clubbing of the two cases or to seek quashing of either FIR. By the time the petition was filed, the father's case had reached the argument stage. The court held that at such a belated stage, there was no scope to entertain the petition.
A further point noted by the court was that at the hearing, counsel for the petitioners did not raise anything regarding an FIR alleged to have been filed by one of the petitioner-accused persons themselves.
Directions to Avoid Conflicting Decisions
While dismissing the quashing petition, Justice Palit directed that both cases be heard and disposed of by the same court to avoid conflicting decisions. The court directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura, Agartala to transmit the case record in PRC(WP) 248 of 2017 to the Special Judge, Fast Track Special Court No.5, within seven days of receipt of a copy of the judgment.
The Special Judge, Fast Track Special Court No.5, Agartala was directed to make all endeavour to record the evidence of all prosecution witnesses, preferably within six months from the date of receipt of the judgment, affording the petitioner-accused persons the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses already examined. After hearing arguments of both sides, the Special Judge was directed to deliver a common judgment within a further period of two months.
The Registrar (Judicial) was directed to circulate a copy of the judgment to all courts across the State. Copies were also directed to be communicated to the CJM's court in connection with PRC(WP) 248 of 2017 and to the Special Judge, Court No.5 in connection with Special (SC/ST) Case No.01 of 2019 (PRC WP 180 of 2017).
Order
Crl.P.No.07 of 2025 was dismissed. The petition for quashing of PRC(WP) 248 of 2017 was found to be bereft of merit. No order was passed as to costs. All pending applications, if any, were also disposed of.