JUDGMENT Biplab Kumar Sharma, J. 1. Both the petitions being interconnected, have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. While in the criminal petition filed under Section 482 Cr. P.C. read with Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the challenge is to the registration of the BI(EO) PS Case No. 01/2011 under Section 120(B)/406/408/420 IPC, registered on the basis of the FIR lodged by the respondent No. 2, who is the Deputy Superintendent of Police, BI(EO), the challenge in the writ petition is the proceeding in Spl (Ele) Case No. 5/2010, now pending in the Court of learned Special Judge, Incharge (Elect), Cachar, Silchar. The charge sheet bearing No. 931/2010 dated 30.9.2010 has been submitted in the said proceeding by the respondent No. 3 i.e. the Inspector/Officer In-charge, Silchar Police Station, Silchar. While according to the petitioners involved in the criminal petition, who are the officials of the APDCL, the BI (EO) case has been instituted at the behest of the respondent No. 3, who is the petitioner in the writ petition being WP(C) 1580/2011, as a counter blast to the FIR lodged by the authority of APDCL, on the basis of which charge sheet No. 931/2010 dated 30.9.2010 has been submitted in the above referred Special (Ele) Case No. 5/2010, on the other hand, it is the case of the writ petitioner that although the incident in respect of both the proceedings is one and the same but having regard to the fact that the respective version are quite distinct and different, there is no impediment for registering the aforesaid BI(EO) Case against the officials of the APDCL. 2. The criminal case, challenged in the writ petition, is now pending for trial upon submission of the charge sheet. The said proceeding has emanated from the FIR dated 26.3.2010 submitted before the Officer-in-charge, Sadar Police Station, Silchar by the Deputy General Manager, Silchar Electrical Circle, APDCL, who is the petitioner No. 1 in the criminal petition and respondent No. 5 in the writ petition. For a ready reference, the FIR dated 26.3.2010 is reproduced below:- Assam Power Distribution Company Ltd. Office of the Deputy General Manager, Cachar Electrical Circle Central Assam Zone, Silchar-15 No. APDCL/CEC/CAZ/T-39/09-10/3520 Dated Silchar the 26th March, 10 To The Officer-in-Charge, Sadar Police Station, Silchar-1. For a ready reference, the FIR dated 26.3.2010 is reproduced below:- Assam Power Distribution Company Ltd. Office of the Deputy General Manager, Cachar Electrical Circle Central Assam Zone, Silchar-15 No. APDCL/CEC/CAZ/T-39/09-10/3520 Dated Silchar the 26th March, 10 To The Officer-in-Charge, Sadar Police Station, Silchar-1. Sub:-F.I.R. Sir, This is to inform you that the undersigned issued a purchase order in favour of M/s. ACCON, Ambikapatty, Silchar-5 for supply of Technovel make 33 KV combined CT-PT set (a metering instrument) of ratio 50/5A and Accuracy class 0.5 vide Memo No. CAEDCT/CEC/T-34(E)/Turnkey/08-09/1855 dated 07.01.09. The CT-PT set was supposed to be installed at 33/11 KV Udharbond Sub Station for recording the energy consumption of M/s. Ladi Steel Pvt. Ltd., Pangram, Udharbond, in view of their increased load demand from 780 KW to 2468 KW. M/s. Ladi Steel Pvt. Ltd had deposited an amount of Rs. 117765.00/- at APDCL's account for the procurement of the same by us. The responsibility of installing metering equipments lies with the Sub-Divisional Office and that of testing/commissioning of the same against consumers lies with the Meter Testing & Inspection Division (MTI) of our Company located in Meherpur, Silchar - 15. Subsequently, on 09.03.10, during routine inspection of the metering system of the M/s. Ladi Steel Pvt. Ltd., it came to undersigned's notice that the installed CT-PT set was of the make M/s. Suman Controls Pvt. Ltd. On query, the Sr. Manager, MTI Division informed that the existing CT-PT set was actually installed only on 23.01.10 by them as per request of Sub-Divisional Engineer, Udharbond Sub-Division, APDCL, on 21.01.10 as the original set installed on 07.04.09 reportedly became defective. But surprisingly it was revealed from the MTI Division, that the original set was also of the Suman make which should have been of the Technovel make as per our order mentioned above. The situation forced the undersigned to investigate the matter and accordingly Central Store Division (CSD) of our Company located at Meherpur and which was the consignee of the ordered CT-PT set was asked to submit the records pertaining to the receipt of the CT-PT set from M/s. ACCON. On verification of the records of the CSD, it was found that they had received the ordered CT-PT (ratio 50/5 A) set on 06.04.09 bearing Sl. No. T/ME/33/152 and issued the same to Silchar Electrical Division -1. On verification of the records of the CSD, it was found that they had received the ordered CT-PT (ratio 50/5 A) set on 06.04.09 bearing Sl. No. T/ME/33/152 and issued the same to Silchar Electrical Division -1. Silchar Electrical Division-1 in turn issued the set to Udharbond Electrical Sub-Division, Udharbond, for installation against M/s. Ladi Steel. But there was no physical existence of our ordered CT-PT set. From the above it is established beyond one's doubt that our ordered CT-PT set of Technoval make was never installed against M/s. Ladi Steel Pvt. Ltd and its whereabouts is unknown to us at this moment It is pertinent to mention here that CT-PT is vital metering equipment installed in combination with die energy meters for recording electrical energy consumption of High value consumers and to avoid any kind of manipulation in the metering system, normally we do not allow the consumers, particularly high value consumers to purchase/supply metering equipments. But in the above case concerned was given undue advantage not once but twice to get installed CT-PT set of his choice. So, there might have some conspiracy done for pilferage of power. You are, therefore, requested to investigate the matter so as to find the missing CT-PT set as ordered by us for installation against M/s. Ladi Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd., Pangram, Udharbond. Yours faithfully, Sd/-26.03.10 (S. Dasgupta) Deputy General Manager, Cachar Electrical Circle, APDCL, CAZ, Silcahr-15. 3. On perusal of the FIR, it is found that it is the case of the officials of the APDCL that the particular CT-PT set which was ordered for installation was never installed and its whereabouts is also not known. In the said FIR, no particular person was named. However, on the basis of the case registered on the said FIR, the police carried out necessary investigation and charge sheet having been submitted against the petitioner in the writ petition, who is also an official of the APDCL, he has challenged the said charge sheet and the proceeding thereof in the writ petition. It will be pertinent to mention here that in the mean time he was placed under suspension by order dated 1.4.2010. 4. It will be pertinent to mention here that in the mean time he was placed under suspension by order dated 1.4.2010. 4. As contended by the petitioners in the criminal petition, as an offshoot to the said criminal proceeding against the writ petitioner, he also filed a complaint with the BI(EO), on the basis of which the DSP, BI (EO) filed an FIR dated 3.1.2011. In the said FIR, it has been alleged that the CT-PT set of Technoval made was not at all procured and thus there was a deep rooted conspiracy, manipulation and fabrication of facts, causing serious doubt about the dealings. It has been brought on record that the said FIR was lodged on the basis of the complaint submitted by the writ petitioner. For a ready reference, the said FIR is also reproduced below:- To The Officer-in-Charge, Bureau of Investigation (Economics Offence) P.S. Guwahati. Sub:-F.I.R. Sir, I would like to inform you that I was entrusted to conduct any enquiry vide memo No. BIEO/341/2010 dated 04.06.2010 and in the course of enquiry it was found that the Deputy General Manager, Cachar Electrical Circle, APDCL, (CAZ), Silchar-15 had placed an order in favour of M/s. ACCON, Ambikapatty, Silchar vide No. APDCL/CEC/T-34/Turnkey/08-09/1855 dated 07.01.09 for supply of one 33 KV CT/PT set of make: Technovel, Tinsukia, Class 0.5, capacity (CT-ratio) : 50/5 (against the deposit works of M/s. Ladi Steel Pvt. Ltd., Pangram under UESD) as per the requirement from the SDE, Udharbond Electrical Sub-Division for which M/s. Ladi Steel Pvt. Ltd., Pangram, Udharbond had deposited an amount of Rs. 1,17,785.00 to the APDCL's account under the DGM, Cachar Electrical Circle, APDCL, Silchar-15 as cost of installing supplementary metering equipment at new 33 KV system of the consumer for its enhanced load from 780 KW to 2468 KW as per norms. But in practice, the supplier M/s. ACCON could not procure the specified materials from the manufacturer M/s. Technovel, Tinsukia, nor supplied the specified materials as per order, but received the payment of the supply order through manipulations and fabrications leading to serious economic offences besides other offences in connivance with the erring company officials attached to the procurement and installation of the materials (CT-PT) as detailed below. (A) The Dy. (A) The Dy. General Manager, Cachar Electrical Circle, APDCL, Silchar is the authority who places order of the materials on receipt of the payment from the consumer through estimation as well as requisition from the concerned Electrical Sub-Division and makes payment of the supply bill on completion of all mandatory conditions of the supply order, but all the mandatory conditions had been evaded in the above particular case as a matter of fact and as a gesture of corruption as well as serious economic offences. In the above process of procurement of the ordered materials, the incumbents involved are namely 1. Sri Sudhir Dasgupta, DGM, Cachar Electrical Circle, APDCL, Silchar-15, 2. Sri Ashim Sen, Manager, CEC, APDCL, Silchar, 3. Sri Kirendra Kr. Dutta, Asstt. Manager, CEC, APDCL, Silchar and 4. Sri Kanchan Chakravarthy, SDE, Udharbond Electrical Sub-division, APDCL (CAZ), Udharbond. (B) The consignee of the procured materials is the Silchar Central Store Division, APDCL, Silchar who receives the materials in their stores, checks all details of the specified materials on receiving in full and good condition and gets it tested from the MTI laboratory through intimation to the Senior Manager, MTI Division, APDCL, Silchar, as per mandatory conditions of the supply order. As the materials was not at all procured/received, the manipulation started from the Silchar Central Stores Division through fabrication of all records of receipt and issue keeping the senior Manager, MTI Division in total dark and verified the false bill of the supplier M/s. ACCON stating that the materials received in full and good condition. The incumbent involved in all manipulation, fabrication and false verification of the supply bill are: 1. Sri Anjan Kami Swami, Asstt. Engineer (PP) and 2. Sri A.C. Barman, Senior Manager, Silchar Central Stores Division, APDCL, Silchar-15, Sri Anjan Kumar Choudhury, Prop. M/s. ACCON, Ambikapatty, Silchar-1 had motivated the erring company officials in verifying his false supply bill without supplying the materials as per the above order. (C) The installing authority of the so called procured materials lies with the Silchar Electrical Division-I, APDCL, Silchar and with the Udharbond Electrical Sub-division, APDCL, Udharbond who are to receive the procured materials from the Silchar Central Store Division through material requisition in the form of indents, Store Transfer Requisition (STR) and Inter Stores Transfer Note (ISTN). (C) The installing authority of the so called procured materials lies with the Silchar Electrical Division-I, APDCL, Silchar and with the Udharbond Electrical Sub-division, APDCL, Udharbond who are to receive the procured materials from the Silchar Central Store Division through material requisition in the form of indents, Store Transfer Requisition (STR) and Inter Stores Transfer Note (ISTN). But the process of material requisition (Indents), STR and ISTN started about one month after date of installation (Dated 07.02.09) of the alleged CT-PT set of different specification (make: Sumon Control Pvt. Ltd) being procured locally through the supplier M/s. ACCON, but the details of specifications and make are not noted/recorded in all the indents, STR and ISTN for malicious purpose where date of issue was noted as 15.05.09. The incumbent/signatories involved in all the above issue, receipt and installation of the alleged CT-PT set are namely: 1. Sri A.C. Barman, Senior Manager, SCSD, 2. Sri Anjan Kanti Swami, Asstt. Engineer (PP), SCSD, 3. Sri Tapan Paul Choudhury, Senior Manager, Silchar Electrical Division-I, 4. Sri Arunabha Nath, Asstt. Engineer (PP), Silchar Electrical Divisional Stores-I, 5. Sri Ashish Kumar Das, Store Keeper, Silchar Electrical Divisional Stores-I, and 6. Sri Kanchan Chakravarthy, Sub-divisional Engineer, Udharbond Electrical Sub-division, APDCL, Udharbond. Shri K. Chakravarthy, SDE is the initiator of issuing as well as receiving process and final installing authority of the CT-PT set at site. (D) The supplier M/s. ACCON who could not procure the materials as per the order, but supplied a CT-PT set of make Sumon Control Pvt. Ltd. being purchased from the available stock of M/s. Ladi Steel Pvt. Ltd. which was installed by the SDE, Udharbond Electrical Subdivision at the Pangram Station against M/s. Ladi Steel Feeder-metering after duly being received from the Divisional Stores of the Silchar Electrical Division-I as well as from the Silchar Central Store Division. The incumbent involved in the process up to the installations are namely 1. Sri Anjan Kr. Choudhury, Prop. M/s. ACCON, Ambikapatty, Silchar, 2. Sri Jangir Amichand, Manager, M/s. Ladsi Steel Pvt. Ltd. Pangram, 3. Sri Kanchan Chakravarthy, SDE, UESD and overall Sri Sudhir Dasgupta, DGM, CEC under whom all such conspiracy and malpractices happened. The said CT-PT set mark: Sumon Control Pvt. Ltd. was tested on 02.04.09 by Sri Kripesh Chandra Dev, Asstt. Sri Anjan Kr. Choudhury, Prop. M/s. ACCON, Ambikapatty, Silchar, 2. Sri Jangir Amichand, Manager, M/s. Ladsi Steel Pvt. Ltd. Pangram, 3. Sri Kanchan Chakravarthy, SDE, UESD and overall Sri Sudhir Dasgupta, DGM, CEC under whom all such conspiracy and malpractices happened. The said CT-PT set mark: Sumon Control Pvt. Ltd. was tested on 02.04.09 by Sri Kripesh Chandra Dev, Asstt. Manager, MTI Division and commissioned on 07.04.09 by Sri Ubaidur Rahman Mazumdar, Deputy Manager, MTI Division in presence of the SDE, Udharbond Electrical Sub-division as well as consumer. However to cover up the malpractices as above, the DGM, CEC had lodged an FIR to the Silchar Sadar Thana (Silchar PS Case No. 653 of 2010) about missing of the CT-PT set of make Technovel of CT-ratio: 5015, Sl. No. T/ME/33/152 which was not at all procured as revealed from the letter of the DGM, CEC addressed to the Chairman, ASEB dated 17.03.2010. Hence there is a deep-rooted conspiracy, manipulation and fabrication of fact that cast serious doubts about all other dealings and pilferage of power through methodical tampering of electrical energy-meters under Cachar Electrical Circle, Silchar-15. I would, therefore request you to register a case to make a thorough investigation on serious discrepancies, manipulations and fabrications of official records, misappropriation of public money, concealment of fact, conspiracy and other economic offence under the Cachar Electrical Circle, APDCL, CAZ, Silchar-15. Yours faithfully, SD/- Allauddin Ahmed, APS Deputy Superintendent of Police Bureau of Investigation (EO) Assam, Guwahati-32. 5. The basic thrust of arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the criminal petitioners is that after lodging of the first FIR in respect of the particular incident, the accused could not have filed the second FIR relating to the same very incident, more particularly, when the criminal Court has already taken cognizance of the matter and has framed charge, etc. On the other hand, it is the argument of the learned counsel for the writ petitioner that the APDCL officials cannot oppose to the launching of the proceeding by the BI (EO), as there is no bar in filing a second FIR relating to the same incident as there is basic difference in the allegations made in both the FIRs. 6. I have heard Mr. B.D. Das, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. H.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners in the criminal petition as well as Mr. 6. I have heard Mr. B.D. Das, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. H.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners in the criminal petition as well as Mr. P. Pathak, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. M.J. Quadir, learned counsel for the petitioner in the writ petition. I have also heard Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. P. Deka, learned counsel representing the private respondents in the writ petition. I have also gone through the entire materials on record. 7. During the course of hearing, both Mr. B.D. Das and Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned counsel representing the APDCL officials submitted on non-maintainability of the second FIR filed by the writ petitioner. Placing reliance on certain decisions, namely, (2011) 3 SCC 758 : Ashok Kumar Todi vs. Kishwar Jahan & other (2009) 9 SCC 129 : Reeta Nag vs. State of West Bengal & other (2001) 6 SCC 181 : T.T. Antony vs. State of Kerala & other 2007 Cri. L.J 4 72: Ramachandra Yadav & other Vs. State of Jharkhand) and (2010) 12 SCC 254 : Babubhai vs. State of Gujrat & other, learned counsel representing APDCL officials submitted that once the first FIR had been registered lawfully and investigation had also been conducted, leading to filing of charge sheet before the criminal Court for trial of the accused, there was absolutely no justifiable reason for the BI(EO) to register any case accepting the second FIR filed by the writ petitioner as a counter blast to the proceeding launched against him. 8. Countering the said argument, Mr. P. Pathak, learned senior counsel representing the writ petitioner placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court reported in (2012) 1 SCC 130 : Shivshankar Singh Vs. State of Bihar & another submitted that there being wide variance in the accusation made, the mere fact that such accusation and counter accusation relate to the same incident, cannot debar the writ petitioner from filing an FIR with the appropriate authority. 9. As noted above, on the basis of the FIR filed by the APDCL officials with the police, investigation was carried out and charge sheet was submitted and the matter is now pending before the learned Special Judge, Cachar, Silchar vide Special (Ele) Case No. 5/2010. 9. As noted above, on the basis of the FIR filed by the APDCL officials with the police, investigation was carried out and charge sheet was submitted and the matter is now pending before the learned Special Judge, Cachar, Silchar vide Special (Ele) Case No. 5/2010. It was much after submission of the charge sheet dated 30.9.2010, which was preceded by lodging of the FIR dated 26.3.2010 the respondent No. 5 made a complaint before the BI (EO) Guwahati. The FIR dated 29.1.2011 was filed before the BI (EO) PS Guwahati on the basis of which the BI (EO) PS case No. 01/2011 has been registered. 10. The aforesaid position has led to two criminal proceedings. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners in the criminal petition, who are the respondents in the writ petition, submitted that two simultaneous proceedings relating to the same incident could lead to injustice and unnecessary harassment to the APDCL officials. Referring to the provisions of Section 319 of the Cr. P.C. learned counsel for the officials of the APDCL submitted that it is always open for the criminal Court to proceed against any such person appearing to be guilty of the offence. They submitted that even otherwise also, under Section 173(8) of the said Code, there is nothing to preclude the investigating agency to carry out further investigation in respect of an offence even after submission of the report under sub-section 2. The said provision empowers the officer-in-charge to obtain further evidence in such further investigation and also to forward a further report. 11. Mr. P. Pathak, learned counsel representing the petitioner in the writ petition while submitting that the said provision might take care of the interest of the petitioner but the same by itself may not preclude his remedy elsewhere. Referring to the complaint lodged by the writ petitioner on the basis of which the above quoted FIR was submitted in the BI (EO) PS, he submitted that there being wide variations in the allegations made by both the parties, independent of the said provision in the Cr. P.C. the BI (EO) is entitled to proceed with the matter independent of the criminal proceeding. The decision, on which he has placed reliance i.e. Shivshankar Singh (supra) is in respect of a criminal trial in which there was counter/cross complaint or cases. P.C. the BI (EO) is entitled to proceed with the matter independent of the criminal proceeding. The decision, on which he has placed reliance i.e. Shivshankar Singh (supra) is in respect of a criminal trial in which there was counter/cross complaint or cases. The investigation involved was of Section 302 IPC where it was found that there are two versions of the same incident, the Apex Court upheld the second FIR. 12. In Ashok Kumar Todi (supra), it was held by the Apex Court that the first FIR having already been registered, there was no need to register a second FIR in respect of the same offence. It was held that once an FIR had been registered lawfully and investigation had been conducted, leading to filing of charge sheet before the competent Court of law for trial of accused persons, there is absolutely no justifiable reason for the High Court to direct the CBI to start investigation afresh after three years. 13. In Reeta Nag (supra), it was held that once a charge sheet is filed under Section 173(2) Cr. P.C. while the Magistrate may on the basis of the protest petition take cognizance of offence complained of or on application by investigating authorities permit northern investigation under Section 173(8) Cr. P.C. but the Magistrate cannot suo moto direct further investigation on account of bar under Section 167(2). In Babubhai (supra), the Apex Court held that subsequent to registration of an FIR, any further complaint in connection with the same or connected offence relating to the same incident or incidents, which are parts of the same transactions, not permissible. In T.T. Antony (supra), the Apex Court referring to the provisions of Sections 154, 155, 156, 157, 162, 169, 170, 173 of the Cr. P.C. held that there can be no second FIR in respect of the same cognizable offence or same occurrence giving rise to one or more cognizable offences, it was held that even if after conclusion of the investigation pursuant to filing of the FIR and submission of report under Section 173(2), the Officer-in-Charge of the Police Station comes across any further information pertaining to the same incident, he can make further investigation, normally with the leave of the Court and forward the further evidence, if any collected, with further report or reports under Section 173(8) Cr. P.C. Similar view has been expressed in Babubhai (supra). 14. P.C. Similar view has been expressed in Babubhai (supra). 14. The first FIR was lodged with the police at Silchar in the district of Cachar. As alleged, the incident took place at Silchar. On the basis of the said FIR, police carried out the investigation and submitted charge sheet, in which the writ petitioner is an accused. It is in this context, the learned counsel for the APDCL officials submitted during the course of hearing that the subsequent FIR is to frustrate the criminal proceeding and has been filed as a counter blast to the first FIR. The question necessarily falls for consideration is as to what prevented the writ petitioner to file an FIR at Silchar itself instead of approaching the BI (EO) at Guwahati. Another significant aspect of the matter is that the second FIR quoted above is by the DSP, BI (EO) on the basis of the investigation purportedly carried out by him, foundation of the same being the complaint lodged by the writ petitioner. 15. On perusal of the entire materials on records, what is found is that the allegations involved and/or alleged in both the FIRs relate to the same incident. The FIR that was lodged at the first instance by the APDCL officials having been registered and the matter having been investigated upon, which led to submission of charge sheet, in my considered view, the second FIR before the BI (EO) and the proceeding thereof may not be conducive for finality to the matter. As noted above, there are remedies available under Section 173(8) and Section 319 of the Cr. P.C. towards exercising the said power and jurisdiction, it will always be open for the investigating agency and the trial Court to take into account the allegations made in the second FIR/report quoted above. Simultaneously, the writ petitioner will also be entitled to submit protest petition about which mention has been made by the Apex Court in Reeta Nag (supra). 16. In view of my above findings, the BI (EO) proceeding vide BI (EO) case No. 1/2011 stands set aside and quashed. However, as noted above, it will be open for the writ petitioner to file protest petition before the trial Court at Silchar and the said Court and the investigating agency will also be entitled to take recourse to the provisions of Section 319 and 173(8) of the Cr. However, as noted above, it will be open for the writ petitioner to file protest petition before the trial Court at Silchar and the said Court and the investigating agency will also be entitled to take recourse to the provisions of Section 319 and 173(8) of the Cr. P.C. It will be in the interest of justice that there is avoidance or conflicting proceedings in respect of the same incident. Both the petitions are answered in the above manner, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.