Point of Law: Where allegations in FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of Code.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. B.D. Das, learned Senior Counsel being assisted by Ms. R. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioners in both the petitions. Also heard Mr. P.S. Lahkar, learned Addl. P.P., Assam, appearing for the State respondent as well as Mr. K. Kalita, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 of Criminal Petition No.722/2014.

2. By this common judgment and order, it is proposed to dispose of two criminal petitions, being Crl. Petition No.768/2014 and Crl. Petition No.722/2014, as the petitioners of both the petitions have prayed for quashing of the proceeding of Complaint Case No.466C/2014, under Section 409/420/468/471 of the IPC, read with Section 65/66 of the I.T. Act, 2000, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kamrup at Guwahati, corresponding CID P.S. Case No.13/2014, under Section 409/420/468/471 of the IPC, read with Section 65/66 of the I.T. Act, 2000, on the basis of the complaint lodged by one Prabir Kalita/respondent No.2, and the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati dated 18.02.2014, passed in Complaint Case No.466C/2014, as a common question of law is involved in the same.

3. The factual background, leading to filing of the present petitions, is adumbrated herein below :-

“One Prabir Kalita (respondent No.2) lodged a complaint on 18.02.2014, before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup at Guwahati, being numbered as Complaint Case No.466C/2014, under Section 409/420/468/471 of the IPC, read with Section 65/66 of the I.T. Act, 2000, against Mr. Nripendra Nath Deka, the then Chief Engineer, PWD (NH Works), Mr. Ranjit Goswami, the then Superintending Engineer, PWD (NH Works) and Mr. Nirmal Nunisa, the then Executive Engineer, PWD (NH Works) and Nextenders (India) Pvt. Limited, stating inter alia that the PWD (N.H.) had issued the Information For Bid (IFB) dated 16.12.2013, in connection with collection of tolls from Gangadhar Bridge and Koliabhomora Bridge. It is alleged in the complaint that the complainant had submitted bid for both the bridges by way of E-tender as well as manual submission. It is stated that in respect of Koliabhomora Bridge, he was invited to attend at the time of opening of the financial bid on 05.02.2014 but his technical bid in respect of Gangadhar Bridge was rejected. The complainant suspected foul play in rejection of his technical bid in respect of Gangadhar Bridge and the same was unreasonable and he believed that the petitioner company in collusion with officials of the PWD (N.H.) had manipulated the E-portal of the tender and committed forgery in the E-tenders.

After registration of the Complaint Case No.466C/2014, the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kamrup at Guwahati, by the order dated 18.08.2014, directed the SSP, CID, Assam to register a case and submit F/F after completion of investigation. Accordingly, the CID, Assam had registered the CID P.S. Case No.13/2014, under Section 409/420/468/471 of the IPC, read with Section 65/66 of the I.T. Act, 2000, against the petitioner company along with the Chief Engineer, Superintending Engineer and Executive Engineer of the PWD (NH), Assam.

4. Being highly aggrieved by lodging of the Complaint Case No.466C/2014, the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kamrup at Guwahati, followed by registration of CID P.S. Case No.13/2014, under Section 409/420/468/471 of the IPC, read with Section 65/66 of the I.T. Act, 2000, the petitioners have preferred the present petitions, inter alia, amongst others, on the following grounds:-

(i) For that the Complaint Case No.466C/2014, pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kamrup at Guwahati does not disclose any cognizable offence u/s.409/420/468/471 of the IPC, read with Section 65/66 of the I.T. Act, 2000 in as much as the issue raised in the Complaint Case has already been decided by the Hon’ble High Court in its judgment and order dated 25.03.2014, passed in WP(C) Nos.871/14, 872/14 and 873/14