Page No.# 1/8 vs The Central Bureau Of Investigation
2025 Latest Caselaw 5261 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/8 vs The Central Bureau Of Investigation on 13 June, 2025

                                                                         Page No.# 1/8

GAHC010114172025




                                                                undefined

                             THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                                 Case No. : Crl.Pet./620/2025

            AVINASH BHARTIA AND ANR
            S/O SRI RAMAVATAR BHARTIA
            R/O FLAT NO. 9A, BLOCK-C,
            SIGNATURE ESTATES, OPPOSITE DGP OFFICE,
            B.K. KAKATI ROAD, ULUBARI, P.O. ULUBARI, P.S.PALTAN BAZAR,
            GUWAHATI, ASSAM, PIN-781007

            2: SRI PAWAN KUMAR BHARTIA
             S/O SRI RAMAVTAR BHARTIA
            R/O FLAT NO. 9A
             BLOCK-C
             SIGNATURE ESTATES
             OPPOSITE D.G.P. OFFICE
             B.K.KAKATI ROAD
             ULUBARI
             P.O. ULUBARI
             P.S. PALTAN BAZAR

            GUWAHATI
            ASSAM
            78100

            VERSUS

            THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
            REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL PP, CBI



Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D SAIKIA, MR W R MEDHI,MR P TALUKDAR,A
BARTHAKUR,MS. PADMINI BARUA,MS. RUKMINI BARUA

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, CBI,
                                                                            Page No.# 2/8




                                BEFORE
             HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND

                                       ORDER

13.06.2025

1. Heard learned Senior advocate Mr. D. Saikia for the petitioners Avinash Bhartia and Pawan Kumar Bhartia, who have filed this application under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India with prayer for quashing the FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom including charge sheet dated 30.09.2024 submitted with respect to CBI Case No. RC2172024A0003.

2. It is submitted that this is the third FIR relating to the same cause of action of the second FIR No. RC2172023A0011 dated 24.07.2023 filed by the CBI against the petitioners. It is submitted that a series of work were assigned to several persons including the petitioners and certain unknown persons with allegations of having dealt in illegal gratification. It is submitted that the third FIR is a replica of the second FIR. It is also submitted on behalf of the petitioners that there cannot be multiple trials on the basis of the same cause of action. The petitioners are willing to face the trial. It is submitted that the allegation was brought up against the petitioners in the first FIR and specifically the second FIR reveals the name of the petitioner as one of the accused. In this manner, a slew of FIRs have been registered against the petitioners and other accused relating to the same cause of action.

3. The third FIR starts with the prelude of the second FIR with allegations that a regular case was registered in CBI on 24.07.2023 vide No. RC2172023A0011 against Sri Santosh Kumar, the then SSE/JRDM, Silchar, Sri Ambika Saw, Smt. Page No.# 3/8

Puspa Kumari of M/S Bharatia Infra Projects Limited and unknown persons of M/S Bharatiya Infra Projects Limited and unknown others under section 120-B of IPC read with Section 7, 9, 10 and 12 of the PC Act, 1988.

4. During investigation it was unearthed that M/S Bharatia Infra Projects Limited has procured certain work orders from North Frontier Railways at Jiribam-Imphal during 2016-2022. This period of works/projects has already been included in the second FIR. It is submitted that the petitioners are directors of M/S Bharatiya Infra Projects Limited, a construction and infrastructure company. It is alleged that during investigation, while conducting search and seizure in the official premises of M/S Bharatiya Infra Projects Limited at Guwahati, it was unearthed that several public servants, railway officials, who were also with the projects of the petitioners' company have received gratification in cash as well as in accounts of the relatives during the period ranging from 01.05.2016 up to 31.07.2023 to the tune of Rs.60 Crores. A list of officials, relatives of the accused and the projects have been included in the FIR alleged to be the third FIR and certain bank accounts have been included which reflects transactions made in a clandestine manner to the accounts of the relatives of the accused. The petitioners' company has also been alleged to be the accused in the FIR alleged to be the third FIR. It is submitted that a cursory glance of the second FIR also reflects that the third FIR is a copy of the second FIR relating to the same cause of action spanning within the same period of time from 2016 up to 2023.

5. Rather the second FIR is more inclusive. The third FIR reflects six projects whereas the FIR alleged to be the second FIR clearly reveals that the petitioners' company M/S Bharatiya Infra Projects Limited was involved in construction of maintenance of railways infrastructure, including tracks, bridges, Page No.# 4/8

tunnels and stations and were awarded 106 contracts for construction of new lines and upgradation of the existing lines in the North East Region from 2010 till date which implies that the period was from 2010 till the date of lodgement of the FIR i.e. 24.07.2023.

6. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the argument of the learned Standing Counsel CBI that different expressions of interests are different contracts and different agreements and separate FIR has to be lodged when illegality and fraudulent activity is detected in the agreements and the contracts cannot be accepted.

7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the CBI that various work orders were issued in favour of the petitioners arising out of several expressions of interests and agreements. There is no bar to call for two different contracts and different agreements of tender. The FIRs alleged to be the first FIR, the second FIR and the third FIR pertain to different periods and different agreements and separate work orders and contracts which cannot be merged into one offence. The petitioners' submission that supplementary charge sheet can be submitted in connection with the FIR alleged to be the first FIR cannot be accepted.

8. It is submitted that it is apparent from the petition that the work orders at Sl. No. 1 to 12 at page 62 of the petition, Sl. No. 10 to 13 at page 93 of the petition and the work orders reflected in the CBI charge sheet No. 22/2024 are separate work orders and thereby the CBI had no other option but to lodge separate FIR. The CBI Charge Sheet No. 22/2024 pertains to the CBI Case No. RC21720724A0003 which is the alleged third FIR.

9. I have considered the submissions at the bar with circumspection.

10. If the entire allegation is summarised it is basically regarding the gratification

received by several railway officials and their family members and the payment Page No.# 5/8

of gratification by the petitioners relating to certain contracts or work orders for construction of railway infrastructure projects.

11. In reply, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the

CBI has failed to affirm that six contract works which have come under the scanner are not included in the total 106 contract works as alleged in the FIR alleged to be the second FIR.

12. I have relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amitbhai Anil

Chandra Shah vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another reported in (2013) 6 SCC 348 wherein it has been observed that:-

37. "This Court has consistently laid down the law on the issue interpreting the Code, that a second FIR in respect of an offence or different offences committed in the course of the same transaction is not only impermissible but it violates Article 21 of the Constitution. In T.T. Anthony (supra), this Court has categorically held that registration of second FIR (which is not a cross case) is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. The following conclusion in paragraph Nos. 19, 20 and 27 of that judgment are relevant which read as under:

" 19. The scheme of CrPC is that an officer in charge of a police station has to commence investigation as provided in Section 156 or 157 CrPC on the basis of entry of the first information report, on coming to know of the commission of a cognizable offence. On completion of investigation and on the basis of the evidence collected, he has to form an opinion under Section 169 or 170 CrPC, as the case may be, and forward his report to the Magistrate concerned under Section 173(2) CrPC. However, even after filing such a report, if he comes into possession of further information or material, he need not register a fresh FIR; he is empowered to make further investigation, normally with the leave of the court, and where during further investigation he collects further evidence, oral or documentary, he is obliged to forward the same with one or more further reports; this is the import of sub-section (8) of Section 173 CrPC."

" 20. From the above discussion it follows that under the scheme of Page No.# 6/8

the provisions of Sections 154, 155, 156, 157, 162, 169, 170 and 173 CrPC only the earliest or the first information in regard to the commission of a cognizable offence satisfies the requirements of Section 154 CrPC. Thus there can be no second FIR and consequently there can be no fresh investigation on receipt of every subsequent information in respect of the same cognizable offence or the same occurrence or incident giving rise to one or more cognizable offences. On receipt of information about a cognizable offence or an incident giving rise to a cognizable offence or offences and on entering the FIR in the station house diary, the officer in charge of a police station has to investigate not merely the cognizable offence reported in the FIR but also other connected offences found to have been committed in the course of the same transaction or the same occurrence and file one or more reports as provided in Section 173 CrPC."

"27. A just balance between the fundamental rights of the citizens under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution and the expansive power of the police to investigate a cognizable offence has to be struck by the court. There cannot be any controversy that sub-section (8) of Section 173 CrPC empowers the police to make further investigation, obtain further evidence (both oral and documentary) and forward a further report or reports to the Magistrate. In Narang case it was, however, observed that it would be appropriate to conduct further investigation with the permission of the court. However, the sweeping power of investigation does not warrant subjecting a citizen each time to fresh investigation by the police in respect of the same incident, giving rise to one or more cognizable offences, consequent upon filing of successive FIRs whether before or after filing the final report under Section 173(2) CrPC. It would clearly be beyond the purview of Sections 154 and 156 CrPC, nay, a case of abuse of the statutory power of investigation in a given case. In our view a case of fresh investigation based on the second or successive FIRs, not being a counter-case, filed in connection with the same or connected cognizable offence alleged to have been committed in the course of the same transaction and in respect of which pursuant to the first FIR either investigation is under way or final report under Section 173(2) Page No.# 7/8

has been forwarded to the Magistrate, may be a fit case for exercise of power under Section 482 CrPC or under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution."

58.2 "The various provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure clearly show that an officer-in-charge of a police station has to commence investigation as provided in Section 156 or 157 of the Code on the basis of entry of the First Information Report, on coming to know of the commission of cognizable offence. On completion of investigation and on the basis of evidence collected, Investigating Officer has to form an opinion under Section 169 or 170 of the Code and forward his report to the concerned Magistrate under Section 173(2) of the Code. "

58.3 "Even after filing of such a report, if he comes into possession of further information or material, there is no need to register a fresh FIR, he is empowered to make further investigation normally with the leave of the Court and where during further investigation, he collects further evidence, oral or documentary, he is obliged to forward the same with one or more further reports which is evident from sub- section (8) of Section 173 of the Code. Under the scheme of the provisions of Sections 154, 155, 156, 157, 162, 169, 170 and 173 of the Code, only the earliest or the first information in regard to the commission of a cognizable offence satisfies the requirements of Section 154 of the Code. Thus, there can be no second FIR and, consequently, there can be no fresh investigation on receipt of every subsequent information in respect of the same cognizable offence or the same occurrence or incident giving rise to one or more cognizable offences. "

12. I find force in the argument of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners.

At this juncture it cannot be conclusively decided if this FIR can be segregated as the third FIR or merged with first FIR which initially brought allegations of illegality in procurement of tender works and illegal gratification being paid to several railway officials by paying gratification through the bank accounts of their family members and relatives. Entire case has to be scrutinised even to arrive at a conclusion that the present FIR alleged to be the third FIR arises out of the same cause of action relating to the same transaction or transactions.

Page No.# 8/8

13. However, there appears to be a prima facie case to grant interim stay, at

least till the next date of listing.

14. Learned Standing Counsel, CBI Ms. M. Kumari has prayed for time to submit

certain authorities to substantiate her cause.

15. List this matter 20.06.2025

16.Till then, no coercive action to be taken against the petitioners and further

proceedings of CBI Case No. RC2172024A0003 dated 17.01.2024 is stayed till the next date of listing i.e. 20.06.2025.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant