Whether the pronouncement is of the operative part of the judgment? : No

Whether the full judgment has been Pronounced? : Yes

JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)

1. Heard Mr. D. Das, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. A.V. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. M. Kumari, learned Retainer Counsel, CBI assisted by Ms. P. Majumder, learned counsel.

2. Invoking the powers under Section 528 BNSS, 2023, the petitioner, herein, is seeking quashing of the FIR and consequential proceedings pertaining to RC2172025A0019 of 18.08.2025. It is stated that the petitioner is the son of one Pradeep Kumar Kasera, who is the proprietor of M/S Industrial Trade and Agencies, having a valid GST registration certificate and trade license. The said firm has its office at Makum Road, Tinsukia. It is stated that on the basis of a source information, an FIR was registered being RC2172025A0012 under Section 7,9,10 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, (herein after the PC Act) read with Section 61(2), B.N.S. 2023.

3. The allegation in the FIR was that Prayas Chakraborty, DGM Oil India, Duliajan, in connivance with Jyoti Kumar Singh, DGM, United Drilling Tools Ltd., Noida, and some unknown public servants were indulging in corrupt and illegal activities in matters of awarding of contracts, causing wrongful gain to themselves. It is stated that investigation of the aforesaid case resulted in a charge-sheet, but the present petitioner was not named therein.

4. It is submitted that during the pendency of the investigation into the aforesaid case, the I.O. of the case, who was an Inspector of CBI, made a separate complaint dated 18.08.2025 against the aforementioned Prayas Chakraborty and also the petitioner. The said complaint was registered into FIR No. RC2172025A014 dated 18.08.2025. It is stated that in the said FIR, the petitioner approached this Court for anticipatory bail, which was granted after hearing.

5. The primary contention of the petitioner is that the FIR dated 18.08.2025, resulting in the Case No. RC2172025A019 is a proceeding by way of a second FIR on the same set of facts and therefore, in terms of the settled principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court in this regard, the same is barred and hence, all the proceedings emanating from this purportedly second FIR should be quashed.

6. The CBI submitted a written objection vehemently contending that the factual matrix giving rise to the subsequent FIRs are different and stand on different factual compass and therefore, not hit by the principle pertaining to bar on second FIR over the same facts.

7. It is stated and contended that the implication against the petitioner was revealed with regard to a separate subject matter during the investigation of the first case and therefore, there was no option but to file a separate complaint leading to registration of the subsequent criminal proceeding.

8. Mr. D. Das, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the contents of both the FIR are same and therefore the second FIR is barred by law. It is also submitted that the allegations arrive out of a single transaction and therefore, there could not be a second FIR over the same. It is submitted that after completion of investigation in the first FIR, the petitioner was not sent up for trial in the charge-sheet.

9. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that it was always open to the Investigating Officer to submit a supplementary charge-sheet upon discovery of any new facts and that filing of a separate criminal proceeding is not justified in the instant case.

10. Referring to the order of this Court granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner in the instant proceeding, the Learned Senior Counsel submits that there is a clear observation of the Court that on the basis of materials prima facie, ingredients of a larger conspiracy was not found and that had a bearing on the order eventually granting bail to the petitioner.

11. In support of his contentions, the