Sri Satyajit Ganguly vs The State Of Tripura And Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 320 Tri

                               Page 1 of 8


                       HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                             AGARTALA

                               Crl. Petn.40/2020

Sri Satyajit Ganguly
                                                    .....Petitioner(s)

                            Versus

The State of Tripura and another
                                                   .....Respondent(s)

Crl. Petn.41/2020

Champa Pal .....Petitioner(s)

Versus

The State of Tripura and another .....Respondent(s)

Crl. Petn.42/2020

Shiv Kumar Bhagat .....Petitioner(s)

Versus

The State of Tripura and another .....Respondent(s)

Crl. Petn.43/2020

Sharad Chandra Misra .....Petitioner(s)

Versus

The State of Tripura and another .....Respondent(s)

Crl. Petn.44/2020

Neeraj Kumar Aggarwal .....Petitioner(s)

Versus

The State of Tripura and another .....Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Subrata Sarkar, Sr. Advocate.

Mr. Abhishek Puri, Advocate.

Ms. M. Pal, Advocate.

For Respondent No.1 : Mr. S. Debnath, Addl. P.P.

For Respondent No.2 : Ms. R. Purkayastha, Advocate.

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI

Date of hearing and judgment : 12.03.2021.

Whether fit for reporting      : No.


                    JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)

These petitions are filed by five officials of ONGC Tripura Power

Company Limited („OTPCL‟, for short), who were the officials of OTPCL

at the relevant time. They seek quashing of an FIR dated 20.10.2019 filed

by the respondent No.2 herein before Hennur Police Station, Bangaluru

and which on account of territorial jurisdiction, has been transferred to the

Kakraban Police Station, Gomati District, Udaipur. These quashing

petitions are filed on various grounds. However, it is not necessary to

examine all the grounds raised by the petitioners since on a preliminary

issue, I find that this FIR cannot survive. Before recording my reasons for

this conclusion, brief factual background would be necessary. The

respondent No.2 herein was engaged as a Graduate Engineer Trainee in

OTPCL on 01.08.2012. After completing her 6 months training at

Faridabad, she was posted at Palatana, Tripura. For the remaining part of

the training after undertaking training for 6 months at Faridabad, she was

placed at Palatana. She was given the post of Executive (O&M) with effect

from 01.08.2013. According to the petitioners, the tenure of the

complainant with OTPCL was troubled on account of a disturbed mental

condition. She was warned on various occasions regarding her service

performance. All the petitioners were holding different managing positions

in OTPCL at the time when the complainant was discharging her duties as

an Executive. According to the petitioners, for her alleged misconduct, a

departmental inquiry was also instituted by the OTPCL, however, the

complainant tendered her resignation and the departmental proceedings

were dropped. Her resignation was accepted.

2. The petitioners would point out that the complainant-respondent

No.2 herein, had made allegations against all the petitioners except one Sri

Neeraj Kumar Aggarwal, who is the petitioner of Crl. Petn. No.44 of 2020

before Kakraban Police Station, which was noted as a G.D. Entry dated

29.07.2019. The allegations contained in the said information were

identical to those which the complainant has made in the impugned FIR

dated 20.10.2019. It is in this context, the petitioners have argued through

their learned counsel that when one complaint containing the same

allegations in relation to the same incidences, has already been registered,

a second FIR with respect to the same was not tenable in law. With respect

to said Sri Neeraj Kumar Aggarwal, counsel candidly stated that he was

not the part of the first complaint dated 29.07.2019. However, with respect

to this petitioner, his argument was that the impugned FIR in question,

discloses no offence against the said petitioner.

3. In the context of this contention of the counsel for the petitioners, I

had requested learned counsel Ms. R. Purkayastha for the complainant to

provide the relevant orders passed by the learned Magistrate in relation to

the said information dated 29.07.2019 and other connected documents.

Accordingly, Ms. Purkayastha has placed on record copies of orders

passed by the learned Magistrate and in particular, one passed on

25.01.2021. She has also produced a copy of a protest petition filed by the

complainant on 29.02.2020 before the learned Magistrate. These

documents are taken on record. Relevance of these documents I will

explain later.

4. For the present, I may note that Ms. Purkayastha argued that the

investigation in relation to the impugned FIR has been carried out, such

investigation is incomplete and there is no justifiable ground to quash this

FIR.

5. The materials on record and in particular, the orders passed by the

learned Magistrate in the previous complaint filed by the respondent No.2,

would show that upon her making a complaint against the four of the

existing petitioners by Sri Neeraj Kumar Aggarwal, the concerned Police

Station had not registered a formal FIR but recorded the information as a

GD Entry. The Officer-in-Charge of the concerned Police Station

thereafter undertook inquiry/investigation into the validity of the

allegations made in the said information. He eventually filed a report

before the concerned Magistrate requesting that the investigation should be

dropped since no cognizable offence had been committed by any of the

accused persons. To this, the complainant had filed a detailed protest

petition on 29.02.2020. The learned Magistrate thereupon passed an order

dated 25.01.2021 and after referring to the decision of the Supreme Court

in case of Lalita Kumari vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and others,

reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1 came to the conclusion that the Investigating

Officer had exceeded his scope and come to the conclusion that no

cognizable offence has been committed against the complainant. The

learned Magistrate passed following order:

"Further, it is to be mentioned that, as per the complainant, FIR has been subsequently registered vide KKB PS/2020/057 with regard to the same incidents and it appears from copy of FIR filed by the complainant that, FIR was registered on the basis of Zero FIR, filed at Hennur P.S., Bengaluru. But, as per the settled law, information relating cognizable, which is very first on point of time has to be registered as FIR, else defects and irregularities will further arise.

In the emergent situation, this court is of considered view that it is obligation upon the court to ensure fair investigation free from all defects, infirmities and irregularities by directing further investigation.

` Accordingly, O/C, Kakraban PS is directed to arrange for further investigation ensuring that no infirmities of irregularities persist in the investigation and shall submit compliance report by next date.

Supply a copy of this order to SDPO, Udaipur for his information, who shall ensure fair investigation of the case.

Fix 10.02.2021 for report."

6. As per this order thus, once an FIR has been registered subsequent

FIR would not be maintainable. Further, the learned Judge was of the

opinion that fair investigation had to be carried out in relation to the

allegations made by the complainant. Accordingly, he directed the I.O. to

carry out further investigation ensuring that no infirmities or irregularities

persist in such investigation and to submit a compliance report.

7. The complainant has not challenged this order nor any of the

petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the petitioners

do not wish to challenge this order, however, without giving up their rights

to seek quashing of the FIR itself, if so advised and I would therefore

proceed on the basis that this order has become final. Though, no need to

clarify, it goes without saying that this statement would not foreclose any

of the rights of the petitioners or even that those of the complainant with

respect to future events and developments which may take place pursuant

to the said order dated 25.01.2021 passed by the learned Magistrate. This

clarification apart, I must proceed on the basis that the order dated

25.01.2021 passed by the learned Magistrate has achieved finality. The

effect of this conclusion would be that the initial information given by the

complainant to the concerned police station and which was previously

recorded as a G.D. Entry, now has taken shape of a proper FIR which is

being investigated as per the order of the Court. That being the position,

subsequent FIR on the same set of allegations would not be tenable. Qua

all the petitioners except said Sri Neeraj Kumar Aggarwal, the impugned

FIR must be quashed on this ground.

8. Coming to the allegations against Sri Neeraj Kumar Aggarwal, in

the impugned FIR, I find that Sri Aggarwal was a Company Secretary of

the OTPCL at the relevant time and he was assigned a task of assisting the

Management to inquire into the allegations against the Managing Director

made by the complainant herein departmentally. In the impugned FIR, all

that the complainant had alleged against Sri Neeraj Kumar Aggarwal is

this:

"5. Neeraj Kujmar Agarwal: This man is repeatedly asking me to furnish the Evidences to him against MD, first on my physical presence, and second thru documented evidences. When he knew the FIR being Registered against me, and must not be asking the same time and again from me directly."

9. It needs no elaboration that the above noted portion does not contain

any allegations of commission of cognizable offence against Sri Aggarwal

qua him also therefore, the FIR must be quashed.

10. In the result, impugned FIR is quashed of all the petitioners. In view

of this discussion, I do not find it necessary to examine other contentions

of the petitioners.

11. Petitions disposed of accordingly. Pending application(s), if any,

also stands disposed of.

(AKIL KURESHI), CJ

sima