Nabakanta Baishya vs State Of Assam And Anr

Susmita Phukan Khaund, J

Heard Ms. S. Kanungoe, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K. K. Parasar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam.

The petitioner, Nabakanta Baishya has filed this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, (Cr.P.C. for short) read with section 401 of the Cr.P.C. challenging the proceeding of GR Case No. 249/ 2012 arising out of Tinsukia PS Case No. 106/2012, under section 120B/420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC for short) read with section 4/5/6 of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act 1978 pending in the Court of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S), Tinsukia, Assam.

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the aforementioned case is similar to a case registered as GR case No. 289/2012 arising out of Jorhat PS Case No. 157/2012 under section 120B/420 IPC, read with section 4/5/6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act 1978 (the Act 1978 for short).

A similar FIR has been lodged on 21.02.2021 alleging that the petitioner is involved in dealing with cash transactions as well as taking cash money in different installments from the customers in lieu of investing in hotels and business engaged with the company. By such act, the petitioner has been violating the provisions of the Act of 1978. Annexure-5 is the copy of the FIR of GR case No. 289/2012.

It is submitted that the petitioner was the agent of the Prior Group Company situated at Jorhat and the Prior Infotics Hi-Rise Ltd. is a branch of the Prior Group Company and the Prior Infotech Infotics Hi-Rise Ltd. was operating in Tinsukia. The petitioner has now prayed to set aside and quash the entire proceeding of GR case No. 249/2012 arising out of Tinsukia PS case No. 106 of 2012 as two FIRs out of the same cause of action cannot be lodged against the same accused.

Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. K.K. Parasar for the respondents has laid stress in his argument that the GR case No. 249/2012 arising out of Tinsukia PS case No. 106 of 2012 relates to a separate entity and the place of occurrence is Tinsukia whereas the GR case No. 289/2012 is a case which was registered under the Jorhat Police Station as Jorhat PS case No. 157 of 2012. On this ground alone, the FIR cannot be set aside and quashed as there are cogent and varied allegations against the petitioner in the present case.

I have considered the submissions at the Bar with circumspection.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that all the cases against the company for which the petitioner was serving as an agent has been clubbed together and is pending in the Court of learned Additional CJM, Kamrup (M), Guwahati. The CBI had taken over the investigation and had submitted charge-sheet and is at present contesting the case. The annexure-6 clearly reveals that the CBI had taken over the Jorhat PS case No. 157 of 2012 and the case is pending against the petitioner and the co-accused in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Kamrup (M), Guwahati.

It is also submitted that this present petition was filed way back on 11-02-2021 within this span of five years the petitioner, who is around 50 years now at present, is suffering from certain health issues. In addition to the prayer of quashing, it is also prayed that the petitioner may be allowed to approach the appropriate forum for transfer of this case, in the event, this Court does not pass an order in his favour then the petitioner may be able to file an appropriate petition before the appropriate forum for transfer of the case from Tinsukia to Guwahati as the other cases are also pending in Kamrup (M), at Guwahati.

I have also considered the submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that at this juncture, the proceedings of the G.R. case No. 249/2012 cannot be set aside and quashed considering that the case is pending at the stage of evidence and the trial court is the best forum to decide the case on its merits.

As evidence has already been recorded, thereby, the prayer for setting aside and quashing the proceedings of G.R. case No. 249/2012 arising out of Tinsukia, PS case No. 106/2012, is not allowed.

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed with a liberty to the petitioner to approach with an appropriate application for transfer of his case to any place of his convenience.

In terms of the above observation, this petition stands disposed of.