The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by Parul Budhraja and three others seeking quashing of FIR No. 230 of 2024 registered at Police Station Link Road, Ghaziabad, for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the IPC. The petitioners, associated with an online business venture under QNet, contended that the FIR was a ‘second FIR’ on identical facts as an earlier case and therefore barred under the Supreme Court’s ruling in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala (2001) 6 SCC 181.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Chandra Dhari Singh and Justice Lakshmi Kant Shukla, rejected the plea and held that the impugned FIR was not barred, as it related to fresh and independent acts of forgery allegedly committed after the earlier case was registered.
The complaint alleged that the petitioners, along with others, forged documents including a Declaration and Distributor Application Form bearing counterfeit signatures of Rishabh, Shobha, and Shubham Agnihotri, and a fake notarial seal purportedly of Advocate Virendra Singh. These documents were allegedly produced during the investigation of the earlier cheating case to mislead authorities and secure exoneration. The Notary later confirmed in writing that the signatures and seals were fabricated.
The Court held that while multiple FIRs on the same facts are impermissible, a subsequent FIR disclosing distinct offences or new occurrences is legally valid. Applying the ‘test of sameness’ laid down in Anju Chaudhary v. State of U.P. (2013) 6 SCC 384 and reaffirmed in State of Rajasthan v. Surendra Singh Rathore, 2025 INSC 248, the Bench found that the two FIRs though arising from related parties concerned different transactions: the first dealing with cheating and inducement in 2019, and the second with subsequent acts of forgery between 2019 and 2024.
The Court concluded that the FIR disclosed cognizable offences warranting investigation and that intervention under Article 226 was unwarranted. The petition was accordingly dismissed, with a direction that the investigation should proceed in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the Court’s observations.
Appearances:
Counsel for Petitioners(s): Mohit Kumar Shukla
Counsel for Respondent(s): G. A., Kabeer Tiwari
