1. By this common judgment, I propose to dispose of the Crl Petition No. 989/2016 and Crl Petition No. 1028/2016 preferred under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC). The petitioners in Crl Petition No. 989/2016 are Smt. Pranita Das, Sri Anisur Rahman, Sri Abdur Rofique, Sri Bodiot Zaman, Sri Alok Chandra Rabha whereas in Crl Petition No. 1028/2016 the petitioners are Smt. Pranita Das and Sri Anisur Rahman. The Crl Petition No. 989/2016 has been preferred by the petitioners for quashing of investigation pertaining to Lakhipur P.S Case No. 413/16 under Section 418/420/423/406 IPC and The Crl Petition No. 989/2016 have been preferred by the petitioners for quashing of Lakhipur P.S Case No. 493/16 under Section 418/420/423/406 IPC.

2. Both the petitions are taken up together for hearing and disposal by a common judgment as agreed to by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties as the matter in both the petitions being closely connected.

3. The facts leading to the Crl Petition No. 989/2016 are as follows;

4. An FIR was lodged by one Sri Nur Islam alleging that a tender notice was issued by the Lakhipur Town Committee on 2.2.2016 for settlement of Lakhipur Weekly Market, Goat market, Cow market and Daily Market. As against the tender notice 23 tenders were received for Lakhipur Daily Market, 31 tenders for Lakhipur weekly market, 24 tenders for Goat Market and 28 tenders for cow market. A comparative statement of the tenders was prepared whereafter one Monindra Chandra Paul was selected for Lakhipur Daily market for an amount of Rs. 3,31,990,/- Ananda Prakash Prasad for Weekly Market for an amount of Rs. 12,12,912,/- Anowar Hussain for Goat Market for an amount of Rs.3,91,999/- and Sri Mostak Hussain for Cow Market for an amount of Rs. 72,26,000/-. These selected persons deposited 50% of their tendered amount and the markets were settled with them. Thereafter, the remaining tenderers applied for withdrawal of their bank drafts deposited at the time of tender. After about a month one of the selected tenderers, Sri Mustak Hussain withdrew his bid showing financial constraints and prayed for release of his 50% deposit which was released to him by flouting all norms. After the release of tender amount to Sri Mustak Hussain the Cow Market was settled with Sri Parimal Sen at Rs. 19,99,999/- which is a much lesser amount compared to the other bids. Thus, the accused petitioners, as Office bearers of Lakhipur Town Committee, as alleged caused a revenue loss to the State to the tune of Rs. 65 lakhs. A case being Lakhipur P.S Case No. 413/16 was registered on the FIR, which is put to challenge in Crl. Petition No. 989/16

5. On the other hand, the allegations leading to Lakhipur P.S 493/16, put to challenge in Crl. Petition No. 1028/2016, are substantially the same except the fact that in this FIR the allegation is that all the selected bidders were allowed to take back 50% of their tender amounts by flouting the tender norms.

6. Heard Mr. Diganta Das, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners in in Crl Petition No. 989/2016 and Crl Petition No. 1028/2016. Also heard Mr. S.S. Dey, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 2 in Crl Petition No. 989/2016 and also in Crl Petition No. 1028/2016. Also heard Mr. N K Kalita, learned Addl Public Prosecutor for the State Respondent No. 1 in both the cases.

7. The common arguments of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, in both the cases, is that FIR should be quashed as the allegations are purely civil in nature and further investigation would be an abuse of process of Court. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners in Crl. Petition No. 1028/2016, further argued that in law there cannot be a second FIR hence the second FIR vide Lakhipur P.S Case No. 493/16 deserves to be quashed.

8. Let me first deal with the aspect of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court with respect to second FIR.

9. In the case of Anju Chaudhary vs State of Uttar Pradesh,