Judgment

S.K. Mishra, J.

In this writ petition the petitioners pray that the FIR bearing Semiliguda P.S. Case No. 32/2013 on the basis of the allegedly self-same transaction of FIR vide CID, CB (EOW), P.S. Case No. 39/2012 has been registered and, therefore, the second FIR is liable to be quashed.

2. Petitioner No. 1 is the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Seashore Group of Companies registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. An FIR was lodged on 18.7.2012 by the Deputy Superintendent E.O.W:, C.I.D., CB, Bhubaneswar with the allegation that on the basis of various petitions and information received, an enquiry was entrusted to the informant to verify the allegations that Seashore Group of Companies are collecting/depositing about crores of rupees from members of general public by alluring them with a high interest. It is further alleged that the company had no commensurate business to make huge interest payment as claimed by it, accordingly the company was running a money circulation scheme, which is an illegal activity. It is further alleged that the enquiry also revealed that the company after collecting huge amount of deposits from the members of general public, suddenly closed down their branches and disappeared. After hue and cry and protest from the public, the company settled some of the amount due to the depositors, but still large number of deposits were not returned to the depositors and misappropriated by the company. On the basis of the aforesaid allegation, CID, CB (EOW) P.S. Case No. 39/2012 was registered against the petitioners and other Directors for the offence punishable under Section 420/120-B of the IPC read with Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") for brevity).

3. Petitioner No. 1 apprehending arrest filed an application for anticipatory bail before this Court and this Court as per order dated 17.10.2012 in BLAPL No. 18619/2012 allowed his application for anticipatory bail.

4. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in pursuance of the direction of the Court in BLAPL No. 18619/2012, petitioner No. 1 was fully cooperating with the investigation by furnishing relevant documents and also attending the investigation as and when called by the I.O. in connection with the aforesaid case instituted by the E.O.W., Crime Branch. It is further stated that on 18.7.2012 the investigating agency seized and sealed all the offices and relevant documents including computer hard disc/ram in 37 nos. in order to verify the amount collected and the amount spent on different heads of the industries of the company. It is stated that the investigating agency is not interested in examining the said records seized by them. However, the investigating agency is going on seizing each and every article, several industrial units, which are part of group of companies without any justification.

5. It is further stated that while the investigation is in progress on the self-same transaction in the first FIR i.e. CID, CB (EOW), P.S. Case No. 39/2012 the second FIR i.e. Semiliguda P.S. Case No. 32/2013 was registered on the basis of the self-same transition against petitioner No.1's company for the offence punishable under Sections 420/120-B/406 IPC read with Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Act. Petitioner No. 1 asserts that the first FIR i.e. CID, CB (EOW), P.S. Case No. 39/2012 and the second FIR i.e. Semiliguda P.S. Case No. 32/2013 are based on same transactions, accordingly, the registration of the second FIR and investigation on the same is mala fide exercise of power by the State, which is unfair, unreasonable, violation of fundamental right guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Relying upon the reported case of T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, 2001(5) SCC 181, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Semiliguda P.S. Case No. 32/2013 is liable to be quashed.

6. The Deputy Superintendent of Po