Hig High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIG HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTA UTTACK CRLMC No. 114 of 2022 Saubhagya Kumar M ar Muduli …. Petitioner Pet Mr. M. Kan Senior Ad M. Kanungo, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & An Another …. Opposite P site Parties at, Addl. P.P Mr. A.K. Apat, Ad , Advocate Mr. M. K. Chand, Ad or O.P. No.2 for O.P CRLMC No. 501 of 2022 …. Pankaj Kumar Mu Another Muduli & Petitioner Pet Mr. M. Kan Senior Ad M. Kanungo, ior Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & An & Another …. Opposite P site Parties at, Addl. P.P Mr. A.K. Apat, Ad nd, Advocate Mr. M. K. Chand, Ad or O.P. No.2 for O.P CORAM: THE HON’BLE M BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN D AN DASH Date of Judgment: 10.09.2025 Da , J. Chittaranjan Dash, J. 1. 2. Heard learned arned counsels for both the parties. By means of t ns of these applications, the Petitioners have s have assailed the order dated 27.06.201 6.2017, whereby the learned J.M.F.C., Jajpu ., Jajpur Road took CRLMC No. 114 of 2022 2022 2022 CRLMC No. 501 of 2022 Page 1 of 13 cognizance of the offe e offences in connection with the charge-she sheet submitted pursuant to Kalinga N inga Nagar P.S. Case No.29 of 2017. The P The Petitioners in both the applications ations are the accused persons in I.C.C. Ca .C. Case No.36 of 2017 pending before th efore the learned J.M.F.C., Jajpur Road. 3. Since both CR oth CRLMC No.114 of 2022 and CRLMC RLMC No.501 of 2022 arise out of the s f the same proceeding and involve common mmon questions of fact and law, they we ey were heard analogously and are being being disposed of together by this comm common order. 4. The backgrou kground facts, in brief, are that the Petitioner itioners along with others were allegedly gedly running a company in the name and s e and style of M/s. Master Capital Servic Services Limited, engaged in share market arket and trading activities, alluring mem ng members of the public to invest money w oney with them by assuring monthly retu ly returns of 4% to 5%. In the process, hu ess, huge amounts were collected from th rom the investors, but neither the capital am ital amount nor the promised interest was st was repaid. Verification by the investors r stors revealed that M/s. Master Capital S pital Services Limited was neither registere gistered under the SEBI Act, 1992 nor a nor authorized to raise funds from the pu the public through issuance of securities o rities or any other scheme. Since the Petition etitioners, being at the helm of affairs of airs of the said company, allegedly misappr isappropriated the investors’ money and ey and failed to refund despite repeated eated demands, a written complaint was nt was lodged before Kalinga Nagar P.S. B P.S. Based on the
Facts
said complaint, FIR FIR No.79(2) of 2016 was registered und ed under Sections 420/406/506/34 of IPC of IPC. Upon completion of investigation ation, charge-sheet was submitted only only against one Sarita Kumar Mudu Muduli, keeping investigation open und en under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. 5. While the ma he matter so stood, another investor, nam r, namely Basanta Kumar Behera, filed filed a complaint before the learned J.M. d J.M.F.C., Jajpur CRLMC No. 114 of 2022 2022 2022 CRLMC No. 501 of 2022 Page 2 of 13 Road, alleging that th that the Petitioners along with others, being , being officials of M/s. Master Capital apital Services Limited, had opened office offices at Duburi Chowk and Bangla C gla Chowk, Kalinga Nagar, collected mone money from him and several others on t rs on the assurance of monthly returns of 2% f 2% to 3%, and even issued post-dated dated cheques to gain their confidence, bu nce, but ultimately cheated the investors o stors of more than Rs.8 Crores. The said co aid complaint was registered as I.C.C. C .C. Case No.36 of 2017. The learned J.M d J.M.F.C., Jajpur Road referred the m the matter under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. r.P.C. to the IIC, Kalinga Nagar P.S. fo .S. for registration of FIR and investigation gation, pursuant to which Kalinga Nagar Nagar P.S. Case No.29 of 2017 was reg as registered. On completion of invest investigation, Final Form was submitted itted against the Petitioners and others,
Legal Reasoning
others, holding them prima facie guilty of of of offences under Sections 420/468/406 68/406/120-B of IPC. Consequent thereto, hereto, G.R. Case No.228 of 2017 was 7 was registered, and cognizance of the o the offences was taken by order dated dated 27.06.2017. As the Petitioners faile s failed to appear despite process, NB , NBW was issued against them by by order dated 24.09.2021. 6. Mr. Milan K Kanungo, learned Senior Advocate, appe appearing for the Petitioners, assailed t iled the impugned order on the ground th und that while an earlier FIR, i.e., Kalin , Kalinga Nagar P.S. Case No.79 of 2016, 2016, on the self- same allegations was s was pending investigation, the subsequen sequent complaint lodged by Basanta Ku nta Kumar Behera and registration of FIR No FIR No.29 of 2017 on identical allegation gations is legally unsustainable. He submitt ubmitted that since Basanta Kumar Beher Behera himself was a signatory to the earli e earlier complaint which led to registratio istration of FIR No.79 of 2016, he could not ld not have lodged a fresh complaint on int on the same cause of action. In sup In support of his contention, he placed r laced reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ Hon’ble Supreme CRLMC No. 114 of 2022 2022 2022 CRLMC No. 501 of 2022 Page 3 of 13 Court in T.T. Antony tony vs. State of Kerala & Others, reported eported in (2001) 6 SCC 181¸ as well as t ll as the judgment rendered by a Co-ordina ordinate Bench of this Court in CRLMC RLMC No.312 of 2016, in the matter of r of Krushna Ch. Debata vs. State of O of Odisha reported in MANU/OR/0673/20 3/2021, to argue that a second FIR on IR on the same set of facts is impermiss ermissible in law. Learned Senior Coun Counsel further reiterated the principles l iples laid down in State of Haryana & & Others vs. Bhajan Lal reported in A AIR 1992 SC 604, and urged that th that this Court, in exercise of its plenary p nary powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., .P.C., ought to quash the impugned procee proceeding, as its continuance would ser uld serve no purpose and amount to abuse o buse of the process of law, being manifest anifestly tainted with mala fide intention. 7. Mr. Apat, le learned counsel for the State, on the n the other hand, vehemently opposed posed the contentions advanced on beh n behalf of the Petitioners. He submi submitted that the complaint lodged by Bas by Basanta Kumar Behera before the le the learned J.M.F.C., Jajpur Road disclo discloses a wider canvas of allegation gations involving a larger number of r of victims and transactions, in contra contrast to those forming the subject matte matter of Kalinga Nagar P.S. Case No.7 e No.79 of 2016. Mr. Apat further contende ntended that when the matter is examine amined on the touchstone of the ‘test of sa t of sameness’, the subsequent FIR regist registered pursuant to the direction of the l f the learned court in I.C.C. Case No.36 o.36 of 2017 cannot be said to be a verbati verbatim repetition of the earlier FIR. Ra IR. Rather, it reveals a broader scope of i e of investigation, encompassing additio dditional persons, investors, and a larger larger quantum of fraud. Accordingly, h gly, he argued that there is no illegality in lity in the learned court below taking cog ng cognizance of the offences pursuant to the t to the said FIR. 8. Upon hearing aring the learned counsel for the parties an ties and on perusal of the materials on re on record, particularly the allegations in th s in the complaint CRLMC No. 114 of 2022 2022 2022 CRLMC No. 501 of 2022 Page 4 of 13 lodged initially by o by one Bitun Kumar Jena and others others which was registered as Kalinga N linga Nagar P.S. Case No.79 of 2016, and th and the subsequent complaint lodged by ed by Basanta Kumar Behera culminating inating in Kalinga Nagar P.S. Case No.29 No.29 of 2017, it appears that both complai omplaints arise out of a broadly similar in ilar incident. However, the complaint lodge lodged at the first instance was rather c ather cryptic, involving only a few perso persons allegedly engaged in share tra re trading under the banner of M/s. Ma /s. Master Capital Services Limited. It is d. It is the contention of the Petitioners that rs that for the self- same cause of action, ction, a criminal prosecution had already b eady been initiated and a charge-sheet sub eet submitted in connection with the earlier earlier FIR, though investigation in the su the subsequent FIR proceeded independen endently and also culminated in submis ubmission of charge-sheet. It is further arg argued that the learned court below, elow, without proper application of judicia judicial mind and without duly consider nsidering the materials on record, proceede oceeded with G.R. Case No.228 of 2017, 2017, thereby permitting multiplicity of pro of proceedings on the same cause of ac of action. According to the Petitioners, s ners, such parallel prosecution is imperm mpermissible and this Court, in exercise of cise of its inherent jurisdiction under Sec er Section 482 Cr.P.C., ought to quash th ash the impugned order of cognizance. 9. The First Info st Information Report is indeed the initial initial record of a cognizable offence, se nce, serving as the foundation for initiating i iating investigation into a crime and mar d marking the commencement of the crimi criminal case. In T.T. Antony vs. State tate of Kerala (supra), the Hon’ble Suprem upreme Court laid down the general prin al principle that a second FIR for the same o ame offence is not maintainable. Howev However, in subsequent decisions such such as Anju Chaudhary vs. State State of U.P. reported in (2013) 6 SCC SCC 384, Kari Chaudhary vs. Sita D ta Devi reported in (2002) 1 SCC 714, Upk Upkar Singh vs. CRLMC No. 114 of 2022 2022 2022 CRLMC No. 501 of 2022 Page 5 of 13 Ved Prakash, reporte eported in (2004) 13 SCC 292, Babubhai bhai vs. State of Gujarat & Others, re reported in 2010 (12) SCC 254 and N Nirmal Singh Kahlon vs. State of P of Punjab, reported in (2009) 1 SCC 441 441, the Hon’ble Court emphasised an ed and modified the principle by recogn recognising that a straitjacket formula c ula cannot be applied to reject a second second FIR in all circumstances. The lat he later precedents emphasise that where n here new facts and circumstances emerge emerge, disclosing a broader scope of cu of culpability or revealing involvemen d lvement of additional persons and transactions, a tran subsequent FIR may b may be entertained notwithstanding its orig its origin from the same incident. 10. The moot ques ot question, therefore, is whether the subsequ ubsequent criminal prosecution initiated p iated pursuant to Kalinga Nagar P.S. Case N ase No.29 of 2017 is liable to be quashed uashed on the ground that, for the same occ me occurrence and cause of action, an ear an earlier FIR had already been lodged and i d and investigation commenced in connec onnection with Kalinga Nagar P.S. Case No ase No.79 of 2016, thereby attracting the g the inherent jurisdiction of this Court un ourt under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The posi e position of law regarding maintainability ability of a second FIR has been authorit uthoritatively considered by the Hon’ble Su ble Supreme Court in Upkar Singh vs. V vs. Ved Prakash, reported in (2004) 13 S 13 SCC 292, as follows – m the above it is clear that even in regard to t arising out of a complaint on furth tion if it was found that there was a larg cy than the one referred to in the previo t then a further investigation under the co gard to a further a larger previous the court “21. From the complaint aris investigation i conspiracy tha complaint then culminating in in another complaint is permissible. 22. A perusal o Narang v. State SCC (Cri) 479 prior complaint is permissible rusal of the judgment of this Court in Ram La . State (Delhi Admn.) [(1979) 2 SCC 322: 19 i) 479] also shows that even in cases where plaint is already registered, a counter-compla sible but it goes further and holds that even Ram Lal 22: 1979 where a omplaint t even in CRLMC No. 114 of 2022 2022 2022 CRLMC No. 501 of 2022 Page 6 of 13 cases where investigation i complaint by th gathered during this larger pro Narang case [(1 not necessary t Suffice it to sa case [(1979) 2 same line as fo [(2002) 1 SCC Bihar v. J.A.C. (Cri) 272: AIR noticed that in SCC (Cri) 104 322: 1979 SCC not express any here a first complaint is registered a tion initiated, it is possible to file a furth t by the same complainant based on the mater during the course of investigation. Of cour er proposition of law laid down in Ram La ase [(1979) 2 SCC 322: 1979 SCC (Cri) 479] ssary to be relied on by us in the present ca t to say that the discussion in Ram Lal Nara 79) 2 SCC 322: 1979 SCC (Cri) 479] is in t e as found in the judgments in Kari Choudha 1 SCC 714: 2002 SCC (Cri) 269] and State J.A.C. Saldanha [(1980) 1 SCC 554: 1980 SC 2: AIR 1980 SC 326] . However, it must hat in T.T. Antony case (2001) 6 SCC 181: 20 i) 1048] Ram Lal Narang case [(1979) 2 SC 9 SCC (Cri) 479] was noticed but the Court d ss any opinion either way. red and a further material f course, Ram Lal i) 479] is ent case. l Narang is in the houdhary State of 980 SCC must be 81: 2001 ) 2 SCC ourt did 23. Be that as i in T.T. Antony 1048] is to b complaint in r counter-compla our opinion, s consequences example given committed by opportunity to registered by th victim of such complaint givin consequently h to bring the re purport of the C at as it may, if the law laid down by this Co ntony case [(2001) 6 SCC 181: 2001 SCC (C to be accepted as holding that a seco t in regard to the same incident filed as omplaint is prohibited under the Code then, ion, such conclusion would lead to serio nces. This will be clear from the hypothetic given hereinbelow i.e. if in regard to a crim d by the real accused he takes the fi ity to lodge a false complaint and the same d by the jurisdictional police then the aggriev f such crime will be recluded from lodging t giving his version of the incident in questio ntly he will be deprived of his legitimated rig the real accused to book. This cannot be t f the Code. his Court CC (Cri) second led as a then, in serious othetical a crime the first same is ggrieved odging a question, ted right t be the have already noticed that in T.T. Antony ca SCC 181:2001 SCC (Cri) 1048] this Court d ider the legal right of an aggrieved person to f laim, on the contrary from the observatio the said judgment it clearly indicates that fili ony case ourt did on to file ervations hat filing 24. We have a [(2001) 6 SCC not consider th counterclaim, found in the sa a counter-comp complaint is permissible.” 11. While dealing ealing with a similar matter in connectio nnection with the second FIR, the Ho he Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matt matter of Anju CRLMC No. 114 of 2022 2022 2022 CRLMC No. 501 of 2022 Page 7 of 13 Chaudhary Vs. State tate of U.P. reported in (2013) 6 SCC 384 384 has held as follows – age and the plain construction of the language a “14. On the p Code, it of Sections 154, 156 and 190 of the Code, scheme of Sec be more e construed or suggested that there can be mo cannot be cons opening FIR about an occurrence. However, the openi than one FIR ab ormation f Section 154 suggest that every informati words of Sect shall be to commission of a cognizable offence shall relating to com a police into writing by the officer-in-charge of a poli reduced into w the first This implies that there has to be the fi station. This stitutes a ion report about an incident which constitutes information rep n FIR is offence. The purpose of registering an FIR cognizable offe ion into he machinery of criminal investigation in to set the ma ce report which culminates with filing of the police rep motion, which thus, be of Section 173(2) of the Code. It will, thus, in terms of Sec at there ate to follow the settled principle that the appropriate to offence. e two FIRs registered for the same offen cannot be two nces are , where the incident is separate; offences a However, whe nt crime r different, or even where the subsequent crim similar or diffe the ambit h magnitude that it does not fall within the am is of such magn ond FIR e of the FIR recorded first, then a second F and scope of t ect is to registered. The most important aspect is could be regis the t the the examine by inbuilt safeguards provided by 4 of the re in the very language of Section 154 of t legislature in t from the ese safeguards can be safely deduced from t Code. These sa f fair of rule of akin principle ak ower by tion and further to prevent abuse of power investigation a Therefore, stigating authority of the police. Therefo the investigati gistered. IR for the same incident cannot be registere second FIR for minative e, the investigating agency has no determinati Of course, the nce with is only a right to investigate in accordance w right. It is only ort upon isions of the Code. The filing of report up the provisions lation or on of investigation, either for cancellation completion of er which commission of an offence, is a matter whi alleging comm risdiction d before the court of competent jurisdicti once filed bef ncerned, kind of finality as far as police is concerne attains a kind f further in a given case, subject to the right of furth may be in a g has been tion but wherever the investigation has be investigation b ie guilty d and a person is found to be prima facie gui completed and mination ting an offence or otherwise, re-examinati of committing d not be nvestigating agency on its own should not by the investig to double jeopardy, CRLMC No. 114 of 2022 2022 2022 CRLMC No. 501 of 2022 Page 8 of 13 permitted mere to the same off suspect, then po by the police ca in mind that Section 154 of object of law b More so, in criminal de investigation is investigating a Magistrate. The the reason that Code and more (Ref. Reeta Na (2009) 3 SCC [(2013) 5 SCC merely by registering another FIR with rega me offence. If such protection is not given to then possibility of abuse of investigating powe lice cannot be ruled out. It is with this intenti that such interpretation should be given 54 of the Code, as it would not only further t law but even that of just and fair investigatio n the backdrop of the settled canons jurisprudence, reinvestigation de novo tion is beyond the competence of not only t ting agency but even that of the learn te. The courts have taken this view primarily f n that it would be opposed to the scheme of t d more particularly Section 167(2) of the Cod a Nag v. State of W.B. [(2009) 9 SCC 12 SCC (Cri) 1051] and Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad SCC 762] of the same date.)” th regard iven to a g powers intention given to rther the stigation. nons of ation or only the learned arily for e of the he Code. CC 129: had Ali 12. In T.T. Anton ntony Vs. State of Kerala reported in (2 (2001) 6 SCC 181, the Hon’ble Supr e Supreme Court has held as follows:- “27. A just bala citizens under A the expansive cognizable offe cannot be any c 173 CrPC em investigation, documentary) a the Magistrate. SCC (Cri) 479 be appropriate permission of t investigation d time to fresh in same incident, offences, cons whether before Section 173(2) purview of Sec abuse of the st case. In our vie the second or st balance between the fundamental rights of t nder Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution a nsive power of the police to investigate le offence has to be struck by the court. The e any controversy that sub-section (8) of Secti C empowers to make furth the police tion, obtain further evidence (both oral a tary) and forward a further report or reports strate. In Narang case [(1979) 2 SCC 322: 19 i) 479] it was, however, observed that it wou priate to conduct further investigation with t on of the court. However, the sweeping power tion does not warrant subjecting a citizen ea resh investigation by the police in respect of t ident, giving rise to one or more cognizab , consequent upon filing of successive FI before or after filing the final report und 173(2) CrPC. It would clearly be beyond t of Sections 154 and 156 CrPC, nay, a case the statutory power of investigation in a giv our view a case of fresh investigation based d or successive FIRs, not being a counter-ca hts of the tion and stigate a rt. There f Section further oral and eports to 22: 1979 it would with the power of zen each ct of the gnizable ve FIRs rt under yond the case of a given based on case, CRLMC No. 114 of 2022 2022 2022 CRLMC No. 501 of 2022 Page 9 of 13 filed in conn cognizable offe course of the s pursuant to the way or final forwarded to exercise of po Articles 226/22 connection with the same or connect le offence alleged to have been committed in t f the same transaction and in respect of whi to the first FIR either investigation is und final report under Section 173(2) has be d to the Magistrate, may be a fit case f of power under Section 482 CrPC or und 226/227 of the Constitution.” onnected ted in the of which is under. as been case for or under 13. The Hon’ble A ’ble Apex Court in the matter of State of R of Rajasthan Vs. Surendra Singh Rath athore reported in 2025 INSC 248, held a held as follows:- Nirmal Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab “8.5. In Nirma ld, in the following terms that when a ne Court held, in is made, is y discovery able. It was said as follows: maintainable. I the second FIR would this n a new ould be “67. The second FIR, in our opinion, wou “ tainable not only because there were differe be maintainabl but when new discovery is made on factu versions but w ns. Discoveries may be made by the poli foundations. es at a subsequent stage. Discovery about authorities at nspiracy can also surface in another proceedin larger conspira xample, in a case of this nature. If the poli as for example es did not make a fair investigation and left o authorities did cy aspect of the matter from the purview of conspiracy asp tion, in our opinion, as and when the sam investigation, i , it was open to the State and/or the High Co surfaced, it wa investigation in respect of an offence which to direct invest nd separate from the one for which the FIR h distinct and sep een lodged.” already been lo n, would different n factual e police about a ceeding, e police left out ew of its he same gh Court which is FIR had 8.6. Apart from made to Ram Surender Kau v. State of Ker rt from these judgments, reference can also Ram Lal Narang v. State (Delhi Admn r Kaushik v. State of U.P.; and P. Sreekum of Kerala. also be Admn.); ekumar 9. From the ab following the permissibility o nter alia, the above conspectus of judgments, inter al the t ing regarding lowing principles bility of the registration of a second FIR: emerge 9.1 When the presents a riva which an earlie en the second FIR is counter-complaint a rival version of a set of facts, in reference earlier FIR already stands registered. laint or erence to CRLMC No. 114 of 2022 2022 2022 CRLMC No. 501 of 2022 Page 10 of 13 n the ambit of the two FIRs is different ev 9.2 When the from they may arise they though ances. circumstances. the same set ent even set of 9.3 When inve earlier FIR or conspiracy. n investigation and/or other avenues reveal t IR or set of facts to be part of a larg eveal the a larger 9.4 When inv n investigation and/or persons related to t bring to the light hitherto unknown facts incident bring ances. circumstances. d to the facts or re the incident is separate; offences are similar imilar or 9.5 Where the i different. s recorded supra, the High Court found that t were indeed in regard to the same offence an , not maintainable, however, in our view the two FIRs, as already referred to in para e distinct. The FIR prior in point of time refe ticular incident and the action taken therein The second FIR pertains to the larger issue ad corruption in the concerned department an , is much larger in its scope than the previo that the nce and, the in para 3 e refers herein is issue of ent and, previous 10. As recor two FIRs were therefore, not scope of the tw supra, are disti to a particular limited. The se widespread cor therefore, is m FIR. 11. Quashin into such corru against the inte uashing of the FIR would nip the investigati h corruption, in the bud. The same would e interest of society. stigation ould be the attending facts and circumstances, t 12. In the t referred to in para 1, impugned herein is judgment refer FIR No.131 of 2022 stands restored on the f aside and FIR N Corruption Bureau, Jaipur. We direct t of the Anti-Co on of the investigation at the earliest. Direc completion of General of Pol of Police, Rajasthan, to ensure compliance w tions.” the directions. ces, the in is set n the file irect the Director nce with 14. From the outli e outline of the aforesaid decisions, it emer it emerges that the principle against regi t registration of a second FIR, as enuncia nunciated in T.T. Antony (supra), is no , is not an absolute rule of prohibition. T tion. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in in Upkar Singh (supra), Anju Chaudh udhary (supra), Nirmal Singh Kahlon hlon (supra), and most recently in State o ate of Rajasthan vs. Surendra Singh R gh Rathore (supra), has consistently clarifie clarified that while CRLMC No. 114 of 2022 2022 2022 CRLMC No. 501 of 2022 Page 11 of 13 multiplicity of FIRs o IRs on the same cause of action is impe s impermissible, a subsequent FIR may may be justified where the allegations dis ns disclose a rival version of the incide incident, a broader conspiracy, wider inv er involvement of accused persons, disco , discovery of new facts or circumstances, o nces, or a scope of crime not covered with ed within the first FIR. Thus, the test is not m s not merely one of chronology but of sam of sameness; if the subsequent FIR travers traverses a distinct field of inquiry, eit y, either in terms of persons involved volved, nature of allegations, or magn magnitude of offence, its maintainability ability cannot be denied. 15. Turning now t now to the factual matrix of the instant case case in the light of the aforesaid prin d principles, learned counsel for the Sta he State has also produced the written i ritten instruction of the I.I.C., Kalinga Nagar Nagar P.S., which indicates that in Kalin Kalinga Nagar P.S. Case No.29 of 2017, 2017, many more witnesses have been e been examined as compared to Case No.79 o o.79 of 2016. The investigation therein h erein has been carried out extensively, collec collecting a larger body of material, inv l, involving a greater number of accused p ed persons, and disclosing offences di ces different from those alleged in Case No se No.79 of 2016. From the case record ecord it is revealed that about 97 witnesses esses had invested their money with the th the establishment belonging to the accu e accused persons, and the number of acc of accused arrayed is also significantly highe higher than in the earlier case. On a clos a close scrutiny of the allegations made in th e in the complaint lodged by Basanta Ku ta Kumar Behera, as against the initial comp l complaint lodged by Bitun Kumar Jena r Jena (in which Behera himself was a signat signatory), though relatable to the sam same broad transaction, the scope of i e of investigation concerning the Petition etitioners in offences under Sections 420/46 20/468/406/120-B IPC is materially distin y distinct. CRLMC No. 114 of 2022 2022 2022 CRLMC No. 501 of 2022 Page 12 of 13 16. In the earlier c arlier complaint, the Petitioners were not ev not even shown as accused, whereas the s the subsequent investigation has brought ought to light their active involvement in ent in fraudulent activities. As held in State tate of Rajasthan (supra), when the ear the earlier action is found to be limited, a ted, a second FIR covering the larger can ger canvas of the fraudulent acts allegedly c edly committed by the Petitioners cannot cannot be treated as identical or repetitive. titive. The second FIR, therefore, is not o s not only broader in scope but has also culm o culminated in an elaborate investigati stigation implicating the Petitioners. ers. Hence, the cognizance taken by th n by the learned court below pursuant to the to the charge-sheet in Kalinga Nagar P.S ar P.S. Case No.29 of 2017 cannot be equa e equated with, or treated as, the same as me as that in Case No.79 of 2016. 17. It is also born borne out from the materials that the Petit e Petitioners, from the very inception, all , allured the public into depositing their their money with the dishonest intentio tention of defrauding them. The offences s nces subsequently revealed thus give rise ve rise to a case that necessarily warrants a fa nts a fair trial, both in order to secure justi re justice for the victims and to uphold the c the confidence of Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BIJAY KETAN SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 11-Sep-2025 19:09:51 18. society in the rule of la le of law. This Court, the urt, therefore, finds no illegality in the cogn e cognizance taken by the learned court b court below; and the present Petitions, bein s, being devoid of merit, stand dismissed issed. (Chittaranjan Dash Judge ash) Bijay CRLMC No. 114 of 2022 2022 2022 CRLMC No. 501 of 2022 Page 13 of 13