As per case facts, petitioners approached the High Court to quash an FIR lodged in Kohima, arguing it was a malicious prosecution and a second FIR on similar facts, with ... earlier related FIRs in Kolkata leading to discharge or ongoing investigations. They asserted no cause of action in Kohima as they resided in Delhi and did no business there, claiming to be whistleblowers. The State respondents contended the Kohima FIR revealed distinct offenses, including forgery of signatures and official logos on fake lottery tickets, misuse of confidential documents, and substantial revenue loss to the government. They emphasized the Kohima complainant was a direct victim of forgery, presenting a separate grievance. The question arose whether the High Court should quash the second FIR lodged in Kohima, considering a previous FIR on similar facts was already registered in Kolkata, and whether the 'test of sameness' for two FIRs was met, as per Supreme Court precedents. Finally, the High Court, applying Supreme Court rulings, determined that the Kohima FIR disclosed distinct and separate offenses and allegations from a different complainant, even with some overlapping sections. The court found a prima facie case against the petitioners for different offenses, noting that rival versions of the same incident can justify two permissible FIRs. Quashing the second FIR would deprive the complainant of justice. Therefore, the petition to quash the FIR was dismissed.