JUDGMENT :

DEBANGSU BASAK, J.

1. Two appeals, both at the behest of the same appellant, directed against two judgement and orders of the learned single judge dated May 15, 2024 passed in WPO 415 of 2024 and November 17, 2023 passed in WPO 1626 of 2023, have been heard analogously, as similar issues are involved.

2. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant has submitted that, the challenge in the two writ petitions is limited to a complaint dated June 18, 2021 lodged by the appellant with the Central Bureau Investigations (CBI) for registering a First Information Report in respect of offences committed by the accused therein.

3. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant has contended that, the appellant is mandated under section 39 of the Criminal Procedure Code to inform the investigating agency as to the commission of offences including Sections 120B and 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. She has submitted that, the appellant performed its statutory duty by lodging the complaint dated June 18, 2021 with the CBI.

4. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant has contended that, CBI acted on the complaint and registered a First Information Report on August 18, 2023. The investigations are in progress with CBI having complete dominion as to the report to be submitted before the jurisdictional court under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

5. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant has contended that, submitting information of commission of cognizable offences to the investigating agency under Sections 39 and 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code does not give rise to any judicially enforceable legal right in favour of any accused for filing a writ petition. She has contended that, the complaint lodged by the appellant with the CBI has not affected any right of the accused therein.

6. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant has contended that, the private respondents cannot and in fact have not contended that, the complaint did not disclose commission of cognizable offences. The contention of the private respondents that, since the complaint to the CBI is based on a forensic audit report and since such forensic audit report has been criticised in different fora, the same cannot form basis of a complaint. According to her, such a test should not be applied for quashing criminal proceedings or a complaint.

7. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant has contended that the private respondents did not make CBI as a party respondent to the writ petition. According to her, in absence of the CBI it is not open to grant reliefs on the consequential decision and actions taken by the CBI pursuant to the complaint dated June 18, 2021.

8. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant has contended that, same set of facts can give rise to different liabilities under different statutes. Therefore, two independent, simultaneous or parallel proceedings are permissible. She has contended that, ingredients required for proceeding under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and the Indian Penal Code, 1860 are different. She has contended that, the Forensic Audit Reports have not been set aside or quashing or invalidated by any court of law. In any event, the complaint has sufficient materials to stand independent of the Forensic Audit Report. In fact, appellant had undertaken an investigation and on the basis of a report dated May 26, 2017, appellant had proceeded against its employees.

9. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant has contended that, CBI is not bound to accept the Forensic Audit Report. CBI has to undertake its own investigations. Moreover, the complaint had been made on behalf of other consortium of lenders. Other consortium lenders had declared the account to be a fraud.

10. Learned advocate appearing for CBI has contended that, his client was added as a party respondent in the two appeals by an order dated July 29, 2025. He has pointed out that, CBI received the complaint dated June 18, 2021 alleging frau