JUDGMENT :

Rumi Kumari Phukan, J.

1. Heard Mr. B Barman, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S C Keyal, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents/CBI.

2. The petitioner, herein, is facing trial as one of the accused in CR(Special) Case No. 2966/2015, under Sections 120 (B)/406/420 IPC, read with Sections 3, 4, 5 of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, pending before the learned Special Magistrate, Kamrup (M). On the basis of an FIR, dated 03.07.2014, CID Case No. 14/2011 was registered, but subsequently, as per Government notification, the case was transferred to CBI, and CBI after due investigation submitted charge sheet on 14.12.2015, which has now been registered as CR Special Case No. 2966/2015 and the case is at the stage of consideration of charge.

3. The grievances that has been raised by the petitioner that prior to the FIR of the present case, another case was filed against the petitioner, more or less on identical and similar allegations, being numbered as BIEO PS Case No. 35/2010, under Sections 120 (B)/420 IPC, read with Sections 3/4/5 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, and after completion of the investigation, the case has been ended at charge sheet, which has been registered as GR Case No. 9803/2010. It is the case of the petitioner that BIEO case having been instituted at earlier point of time on similar allegations, registration of the subsequent FIR at CID is bad in law and same could have been treated as statement under Section 162 CrPC. Raising the aforesaid grievances, the petitioner filed a petition before the trial Court that the CR (Special) Case No. 2996/2015 is not maintainable and prayed for dropping of the proceeding against him. The CBI objected to the said prayer on the ground that although both the cases seem to be similar and identical, but the complainant, place of occurrence and sections of law mentioned in FIRs are different from each other. The learned trial Court by impugned order dated 13.11.2019 has rejected the prayer, holding that the learned trial Court being at the lowest level in the criminal Court (JMFC) cannot drop its own proceeding and it would be beyond its jurisdiction.

4. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid order, the petitioner is, before this Court by way of this petition under Section 482 CrPC, read with Section 397/401 of the CrPC, that the aforesaid two proceedings cannot run against the same person and if the present case is allowed to proceed, then there will be double jeopardy in respect of the present petitioner, which will violate the provision of Article 20 (2) of the Constitution of India.

5. The respondent (CBI), has filed the affidavit, resisting the petition, contending that ingredients of different sections invoked in the two FIRs in GR Case No. 9803/2010 and CR (Special) Case No. 2996/2015, although identical, but the complainant, place of occurrence are different It further contends that accused petitioner could not convince the learned Court of Special Judge, whether Sanjay Kumar Sarkar/informant in the other case has been brought into the investigation made by the BIEO and hence, quashing of the FIR will cause injustice to the informant of the other case, and the same aspect has also been noticed by the learned Special Judge. It has been submitted that the petition is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the FIRs pertaining to the aforesaid two cases and has urged before this Court that going by the content of both the FIRs, it will reflect that exactly on similar accusations, both the FIRs have been filed, save and except, the informant in both the cases are different. Placing reliance to the decision of Anju Chowdhury Vs. Uttar Pradesh; (2003) 6 SCC 384, it has been submitted that there cannot be two FIRs registered on the same offences, which have been provided to save the litigants from double jeo