JUDGMENT :

Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.

1. The instant Application has been preferred by the petitioner for quashment of G.R Case no 6529 of 2024 arising out of Liluah P.S Case no. 668 of 2024 dated 21.12.2024 on the ground that the said FIR is the second FIR in connection with self-same facts and self-same allegations and in connection of which the other criminal proceeding being Jorabagan P.S Case no. 214 of 2024 dated 20.12.2024 has already been initiated.

2. Being aggrieved by the present proceeding, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on perusal of the Jorabagan police station case no. 214 of 2024 along with Liluah P.S case no. 668 of 2024,it transpires that the defacto complainant and the accused persons are the same. It is alleged in Jorabagan P.S case that the date and time of occurrence is in between 11.30 P.M. on 19.12.2024 and 2.00 A.M. on 20.12.2024 whereas date and time of occurrence in connection with Liluah P.S is in between 11.05 P.M. on 19.12.2024 and 1.30 A.M. on 20.12.2024 . However while the information in connection with Jorabagan P.S was received on 20.12.2024 at 16:10 Hrs, the information received in connection with Liluah P.S case is on 21.12.2024 at 21:05 Hrs. Therefore it is clear that Jorabagan P.S Case no. 214 of 2024 was initiated prior to the instant Liluah P.S case no. 668 of 2024.

3. Mr. Dutta on behalf of the petitioners further submits that the Trial Court while granted bail had held that after meticulously going to the case record, he did not find any reason to detain the accused person behind the bar, in connection with the instant case, as both the cases relate to the self- same cause of action and already they are in judicial custody in connection with the Jorabagan P.S case no. 214 of 2024, which is the earlier one. He further submits that a bare perusal of charge sheet, it reveals that no medical injury report of the complainant was collected as the complainant had attended only at Outpatient Department of the hospital as confirmed by the hospital superintendent. He further contended that in the instant FIR,the opposite party no. 2 deliberately and with malafide intention has supressed the material fact of initiation of the earlier proceeding being Jorabagan P.S case no. 214 of 2024,while lodging the subsequent complaint before Liluah P.S.

4. He further submits that the incident is discrete and not a continued offence and multiple proceedings on identical fact with minor variation, amounts to abuse of process and are liable to be quashed. Petitioners’ specific contention is that the instant case along with Jorabagan P.S Case no. 214 of 2024 are result of malicious prosecution done at the behest of the opposite party no. 2 to wreak vengeance against the petitioners as the petitioners refused to act illegally. Moreover the opposite party no. 2 has not offered any plausible explanation for the delay in lodging the instant FIR.

5. Mr. Dutta on behalf of the petitioner further submits that section 140(3) of the BNS 2023 does not attract in the instant proceeding in the absence of corroboration and the FIR in connection with Jorabagan P.S states that the accused merely dropped opposite party no.2 at home, negating any ingredient of abduction. Similarly section 115(2) of BNS also does not have any application as investigating agency could not establish that the opposite party no. 2 herein had sustained any injury.

6. Learned advocate for the state produced a medical report of opposite party but it appears that said report is not in connection with the instant proceeding but in connection with the Jorabagan P.S case. He further submits that section 308 (4) of the BNS does not attract as there appears to be no allegation of extortion in the written complaint and the alleged weapon was never recovered.

7. He further submits that if the second FIR arose out of a continuing series of acts connected with the first FIR, court can direct that the report submitted in the second FIR be treated as a suppl