Second FIR maintainable where allegations were materially distinct and criminal complaints extended beyond GST proceedings.

A second FIR was not barred where it rested on a materially distinct factual foundation, even though some background facts overlapped with an earlier FIR and GST proceedings. The Court treated the earlier FIR as concerning alleged document fabrication and efforts to displace control of the company, while the later FIR alleged clandestine manufacture and sale of goods, misappropriation of company funds, diversion of sale proceeds, falsification of records, and personal use of cash. It also held that the GST notice did not cover the alleged misappropriation and diversion, so the criminal allegations were not confined to the GST domain. A person with an interest in the company could inform police of cognizable offences, and the FIR was allowed to stand.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned FIR was liable to be quashed on the ground that it substantially overlapped with an earlier FIR and the GST proceedings, and whether the complainant lacked locus standi to set the criminal law in motion.

Analysis: The overlap between the two FIRs was held to be only partial. The earlier FIR related principally to alleged fabrication of documents and attempts to oust the complainant and her family from control of the company, while the impugned FIR was based on subsequent and additional allegations of clandestine manufacture and sale of goods, misappropriation of company funds, diversion of sale proceeds, falsification of records, and related personal use of cash. The Court found that the GST show-cause notice did not cover the alleged misappropriation and diversion of funds, and therefore the offences alleged in the impugned FIR were not confined to the GST domain. The complainant's locus was also rejected, since a person with an interest in the company could inform the police about cognizable offences. Applying the settled restraint against interference at the initial stage of investigation, the Court held that the matter disclosed a distinct set of allegations requiring investigation.

Conclusion: The challenge to the FIR failed; the second FIR was held maintainable and not liable to be quashed.

Final Conclusion: The criminal investigation was permitted to continue because the impugned FIR was treated as resting on a separate factual foundation and on allegations outside the limited overlap with the earlier proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: A second FIR is not barred where it is founded on a materially distinct set of facts and allegations, even if some background facts overlap with an earlier FIR, and the High Court should not quash such proceedings at the threshold unless no cognizable offence is disclosed or the prosecution is otherwise barred by law.

---