The court upheld the legality of ongoing investigations into serious allegations of fraud and corruption, asserting the necessity for investigations when FIRs disclose cognizable offences.

1. The petitioner Shri Pawan Kumar Ruia filed this revisional application for quashing the investigations and proceedings in Case Nos. RC / 12 / EOW / 86, RC / 13 / EOW / 86, RC / 14 / E / 86 and RC / I 5 / EOW / 86 all dated 17th December, 1986. All these proceedings were started under S.12 OB / 420/4681471 IPC and under S.5(1)(d) read with S.5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act , 1947 on the basis of four separate FIRs lodged by one Shri D. Kasiappan, Dy. General Manager of Tamil Nadu Marcantile Bank Limited, Calcutta. This revisional application was originally heard by a Division Bench of this court comprising of P. Khastgir and A.M. Sinha, JJ. the petitioner took the objection that the allegations made in the FIRs are not true and at any rate do not, prima facie, make out any cognizable offence and as such the FIRs and the investigations are liable to be quashed. A plea was also taken that the Central Bureau of Investigation (C. B. I.) with whom the FIRs were lodged and who took up the investigations are not competent to investigate the cases. Both the learned Judges of the Division Bench in their separate orders dated 8-5-91 however held that the CBI was competent to investigate the matter. The learned Judges also did not consider it proper to quash the entire investigation. There was however a difference of opinion between the learned Judges on the question whether investigation should be continued against the present petitioner. While A.M. Sinha, J. held that no case was made out for staying the investigation against the petitioner. P. Khastgir, J. was of the view that the investigation proceedings should be stayed so far as present petitioner is concerned. At the same time the learned Judge also made it abundantly clear that the order would not prevent the investigating authorities to further investigate into the matter and if they were able to collect sufficient materials against the petitioner after such investigation they might apply for variation and / or vacation and / or recession of the order. In view of this difference of opinion between the learned Judges of the Division Bench as to whether the investigations should be stayed against the petitioner the matter was referred to a learned Third Judge being M. G. Mukherji, J. Having regard to the nature of the matter the learned Third Judge recommended the matter to be referred to a larger Bench. Accordingly the Hon'ble the Chief Justice has assigned the matter to this Bench which is presided over by M. G. Mukherji, J.

2. It has been argued by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the material allegations in the concerned F. I. R. s are not true and that the allegations do not prima facie disclose commission of any cognizable offence and as such the F. I. R. s and the investigations are liable to be quashed. Here, it is necessary to look to the allegations made in the FIRs. The allegations made in all the F. I. R s are more or less the same. Only the periods, amounts and figures involved are different. As a sample case we look to the allegations made in the FIR in proceeding RC / 12 / EOW / 86 dated 17th December, 1986. The FIR was recorded by the C. B. I. on the basis of written complaint lodged by Shri D. Kasiappan, Dy. General Manager, Tamil Nadu Marcantile Bank Limited. It is stated in the FIR that it appears from records that during the period from January 1985 to September 1985 the then Calcutta Branch Manager (of the said bank) Mr. Charles Solomon had misused his official position and power and committed fraud, conspiracy and cheating in a preplanned manner thereby cheating the bank. It is further stated in the FIR that dur