Saubhgya Kumar Muduli Vs State of Odisha

cognizance of the of f ences in connection with the charge-s h eet submitted pursuant to Kalinga Nagar P.S. Case No.29 of 2017. The Petitioners in both the applications are the accused persons in I.C.C. C ase No.36 of 2017 pending before the learned J.M.F.C., Jajpur Road.

¶22

Since both C RLMC No.114 of 2022 and CRL M C No.501 of 2022 arise out of th e same proceeding and involve common questions of fact and law, they w ere heard analogously and are bei n g disposed of together by this com m on order. 4. The backgro u nd facts, in brief, are that the Petitio n ers along with others were allegedl y running a company in the name an d style of M/s. Master Capital Ser v ices Limited, engaged in share mark e t and trading activities, alluring m embers of the public to invest money with them by assuring monthly returns of 4% to 5%. In the process, h uge amounts were collected from the investors, but neither the capital a mount nor the promised interest w a s repaid. Verification by the investor s revealed that M/s. Master Capital Services Limited was neither regist e red under the SEBI Act, 1992 no r authorized to raise funds from the p ublic through issuance of securitie s or any other scheme. Since the Petiti o ners, being at the helm of affairs o f the said company, allegedly misappropriated the investors’ money a n d failed to refund despite repeate d demands, a written complaint w as lodged before Kalinga Nagar P.S. Based on the said complaint, FI R No.79(2) of 2016 was registered u nder Sections 420/406/506/34 of I P C. Upon completion of investigatio n , charge-sheet was submitted on l y against one Sarita Kumar Mu d uli, keeping investigation open u n der Section 173(8) Cr.P.C.

¶23

While the m atter so stood, another investor, n a mely Basanta Kumar Behera, file d a complaint before the learned J. M .F.C., Jajpur

¶24

CRLMC No. 114 of 2022 CRLMC No. 501 of 2022

¶25

Page 2 of 13

¶26

Road, alleging that t he Petitioners along with others, bei n g officials of M/s. Master Capita l Services Limited, had opened offi c es at Duburi Chowk and Bangla Chowk, Kalinga Nagar, collected money from him and several others o n the assurance of monthly returns of 2 % to 3%, and even issued post-da t ed cheques to gain their confidence, but ultimately cheated the investor s of more than Rs.8 Crores. The said c omplaint was registered as I.C.C. Case No.36 of 2017. The learned J. M .F.C., Jajpur Road referred the m atter under Section 156(3) Cr.P. C . to the IIC, Kalinga Nagar P.S. f or registration of FIR and investigati o n, pursuant to which Kalinga Na g ar P.S. Case No.29 of 2017 was r egistered. On completion of investigation, Final Form was submitte d against the Petitioners and othe r s, holding them prima facie guilty of o ffences under Sections 420/468/4 0 6/120-B of IPC. Consequent there t o, G.R. Case No.228 of 2017 w a s registered, and cognizance of the offences was taken by order dat e d 27.06.2017. As the Petitioners fa i led to appear despite process, N BW was issued against them by order dated 24.09.2021.

¶27

Mr. Milan K anungo, learned Senior Advocate, ap p earing for the Petitioners, assailed the impugned order on the ground that while an earlier FIR, i.e., Ka l inga Nagar P.S. Case No.79 of 201 6 , on the selfsame allegations w a s pending investigation, the subseq u ent complaint lodged by Basanta K umar Behera and registration of FIR N o.29 of 2017 on identical allegati o ns is legally unsustainable. He subm i tted that since Basanta Kumar Beh e ra himself was a signatory to the ea r lier complaint which led to registra t ion of FIR No.79 of 2016, he could n o t have lodged a fresh complaint o n the same cause of action. In s u pport of his contention, he place d reliance upon the decision of the Ho n ’ble Supreme

¶28

CRLMC No. 114 of 2022 CRLMC No. 501 of 2022

¶29

Page 3 of 13

¶30

Court in T.T. Antony vs. State of Kerala & Others , repor t ed in (2001) 6 SCC 181 ¸ as well a s the judgment rendered by a Co-ordi n ate Bench of this Court in CRLMC No.312 of 2016 , in the matter of Krushna Ch. Debata vs. State of Odisha reported in MANU/OR/0673/2021 , to argue that a second FIR o n the same set of facts is impermissible in law. Learned Senior Co u nsel further reiterated the principles laid down in State of Haryana & Others vs. Bhajan Lal reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 , and urged that this Court, in exercise of its plenary powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C . , ought to quash the impugned pro c eeding, as its continuance would serve no purpose and amount to abuse of the process of law, being manifestly tainted with mala fide intention.

¶31

Mr. Apat, l e arned counsel for the State, on th e other hand, vehemently opposed the contentions advanced on b ehalf of the Petitioners. He sub m itted that the complaint lodged by B asanta Kumar Behera before the learned J.M.F.C., Jajpur Road disc l oses a wider canvas of allegati o ns involving a larger number of victims and transactions, in cont r ast to those forming the subject mat t er of Kalinga Nagar P.S. Case No.79 of 2016. Mr. Apat further conten d ed that when the matter is exami n ed on the touchstone of the ‘test of s ameness’, the subsequent FIR regi s tered pursuant to the direction of th e learned court in I.C.C. Case No.3 6 of 2017 cannot be said to be a verb a tim repetition of the earlier FIR. R ather, it reveals a broader scope of investigation, encompassing addit i onal persons, investors, and a larg e r quantum of fraud. Accordingly, he argued that there is no illegality i n the learned court below taking c o gnizance of the offences pursuant to t he said FIR.

¶32

Upon hearin g the learned counsel for the parties a nd on perusal of the materials on r ecord, particularly the allegations in the complaint

¶33

CRLMC No. 114 of 2022 CRLMC No. 501 of 2022

¶34

Page 4 of 13

¶35

lodged initially by one Bitun Kumar Jena and othe r s which was registered as Kaling a Nagar P.S. Case No.79 of 2016, and t he subsequent complaint lodged b y Basanta Kumar Behera culminati n g in Kalinga Nagar P.S. Case No.29 of 2017, it appears that both comp l aints arise out of a broadly similar incident. However, the complaint lod g ed at the first instance was rather cryptic, involving only a few per s ons allegedly engaged in share t r ading under the banner of M/s. M aster Capital Services Limited. It is the contention of the Petitioners th a t for the selfsame cause of actio n , a criminal prosecution had already been initiated and a charge-sheet submitted in connection with the earli e r FIR, though investigation in the subsequent FIR proceeded independ e ntly and also culminated in subm i ssion of charge-sheet. It is further a r gued that the learned court belo w , without proper application of judi c ial mind and without duly consid e ring the materials on record, procee d ed with G.R. Case No.228 of 201 7 , thereby permitting multiplicity of p roceedings on the same cause of a ction. According to the Petitioners, such parallel prosecution is impe r missible and this Court, in exercise o f its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., ought to quash the impugned order of cognizance.

¶36

The First Information Report is indeed the initi a l record of a cognizable offence, s erving as the foundation for initiatin g investigation into a crime and m a rking the commencement of the cri m inal case. In T.T. Antony vs. State of Kerala (supra), the Hon’ble Supr e me Court laid down the general pr i nciple that a second FIR for the same offence is not maintainable. However, in subsequent decisions s u ch as Anju Chaudhary vs. State of U.P. reported in (2013) 6 SCC 384 , Kari Chaudhary vs. Sita Devi reported in (2002) 1 SCC 714 , Upkar Singh vs.

¶37

CRLMC No. 114 of 2022 CRLMC No. 501 of 2022

¶38

Page 5 of 13

¶39

Ved Prakash , repor t ed in (2004) 13 SCC 292, Babubhai vs. State of Gujarat & Others , r eported in 2010 (12) SCC 254 and Nirmal Singh Kahlon vs. State of Punjab , reported in (2009) 1 SCC 441 , the Hon’ble Court emphasised a nd modified the principle by reco g nising that a straitjacket formula cannot be applied to reject a seco n d FIR in all circumstances. The l ater precedents emphasise that where new facts and circumstances emerge, disclosing a broader scope of culpability or revealing involve m ent of additional persons and t r ansactions, a subsequent FIR ma y be entertained notwithstanding its o r igin from the same incident.

¶40

The moot q u estion, therefore, is whether the subse q uent criminal prosecution initiated pursuant to Kalinga Nagar P.S. Case N o.29 of 2017 is liable to be quas h ed on the ground that, for the same o ccurrence and cause of action, an e a rlier FIR had already been lodged an d investigation commenced in conn e ction with Kalinga Nagar P.S. Case N o.79 of 2016, thereby attracting t h e inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The po s ition of law regarding maintainabili t y of a second FIR has been autho r itatively considered by the Hon’ble S upreme Court in Upkar Singh vs. Ved Prakash, reported in (2004) 13 SCC 292 , as follows –

¶41

“21. From the above it is clear that even in regard to a complaint a r ising out of a complaint on fu r ther investigation if it was found that there was a l a rger conspiracy t h an the one referred to in the pre v ious complaint th e n a further investigation under the c ourt culminating i n another complaint is permissible.

¶42

A perusa l of the judgment of this Court in Ra m Lal Narang v. St a te (Delhi Admn.) [(1979) 2 SCC 322: 1 979 SCC (Cri) 4 7 9] also shows that even in cases wh e re a prior complaint is already registered, a counter-comp l aint is permissibl e but it goes further and holds that ev e n in

¶43

CRLMC No. 114 of 2022 CRLMC No. 501 of 2022

¶44

Page 6 of 13

¶45

cases wher e a first complaint is registered and investigation initiated, it is possible to file a fu r ther complaint by the same complainant based on the material gathered dur i ng the course of investigation. Of co u rse, this larger p r oposition of law laid down in Ram Lal Narang case [ (1979) 2 SCC 322: 1979 SCC (Cri) 47 9 ] is not necessar y to be relied on by us in the present c ase. Suffice it to s ay that the discussion in Ram Lal Na r ang case [(1979) 2 SCC 322: 1979 SCC (Cri) 479] is i n the same line as found in the judgments in Kari Choud h ary [(2002) 1 S C C 714: 2002 SCC (Cri) 269] and Sta t e of Bihar v. J.A. C . Saldanha [(1980) 1 SCC 554: 1980 S CC (Cri) 272: A IR 1980 SC 326] . However, it must be noticed that i n T.T. Antony case (2001) 6 SCC 181: 2 001 SCC (Cri) 1 0 48] Ram Lal Narang case [(1979) 2 S CC 322: 1979 S C C (Cri) 479] was noticed but the Cour t did not express a n y opinion either way.

¶46

Be that a s it may, if the law laid down by this C ourt in T.T. Anto n y case [(2001) 6 SCC 181: 2001 SCC ( Cri) 1048] is to be accepted as holding that a se c ond complaint in regard to the same incident filed a s a counter-com p laint is prohibited under the Code the n , in our opinion, such conclusion would lead to se r ious consequence s . This will be clear from the hypothetical example giv e n hereinbelow i.e. if in regard to a c r ime committed b y the real accused he takes the first opportunity t o lodge a false complaint and the sa m e is registered by the jurisdictional police then the aggri e ved victim of su c h crime will be recluded from lodgi n g a complaint gi v ing his version of the incident in ques t ion, consequently he will be deprived of his legitimated r ight to bring the real accused to book. This cannot b e the purport of th e Code.

¶47

We have already noticed that in T.T. Antony case [(2001) 6 SC C 181:2001 SCC (Cri) 1048] this Cour t did not consider t he legal right of an aggrieved person t o file counterclaim, on the contrary from the observa t ions found in the s aid judgment it clearly indicates that fi ling a counter-co m plaint is permissible.”

¶48

While deali n g with a similar matter in connection with the second FIR, the H on’ble Supreme Court in the m a tter of Anju

¶49

CRLMC No. 114 of 2022 CRLMC No. 501 of 2022

¶50

Page 7 of 13

¶51

Chaudhary Vs. State of U.P. reported in (2013) 6 SCC 384 has held as follows –

¶52

“14. On the plain construction of the language and scheme of S e ctions 154, 156 and 190 of the Co d e, it cannot be co n strued or suggested that there can be m ore than one FIR about an occurrence. However, the ope n ing words of Se c tion 154 suggest that every inform a tion relating to c o mmission of a cognizable offence sha l l be reduced into w riting by the officer-in-charge of a p o lice station. This implies that there has to be the first information report about an incident which constitu t es a cognizable o f fence. The purpose of registering an F I R is to set the m achinery of criminal investigation into motion, whic h culminates with filing of the police r e port in terms of Section 173(2) of the Code. It will, thu s , be appropriate t o follow the settled principle that t here cannot be t w o FIRs registered for the same off e nce. However, w h ere the incident is separate; offences are similar or di f ferent, or even where the subsequent c r ime is of such ma g nitude that it does not fall within the a m bit and scope o f the FIR recorded first, then a second FIR could be re g istered. The most important aspect is to examine th e inbuilt safeguards provided by the legislature in the very language of Section 154 o f the Code. These safeguards can be safely deduced fro m the principle a k in to double jeopardy, rule of fair investigation and further to prevent abuse of powe r by the investig a ting authority of the police. There f ore, second FIR f or the same incident cannot be regist e red. Of course, th e investigating agency has no determin a tive right. It is o n ly a right to investigate in accordance w ith the provisio n s of the Code. The filing of report u pon completion o f investigation, either for cancellatio n or alleging co m mission of an offence, is a matter which once filed b e fore the court of competent jurisdi c tion attains a kin d of finality as far as police is conce r ned, may be in a given case, subject to the right of fu r ther investigation but wherever the investigation has b een completed and a person is found to be prima facie g u ilty of committin g an offence or otherwise, re-examin a tion by the inves t igating agency on its own should not be

¶53

CRLMC No. 114 of 2022 CRLMC No. 501 of 2022

¶54

Page 8 of 13

¶55

permitted me r ely by registering another FIR with re g ard to the same o ffence. If such protection is not given to a suspect, then possibility of abuse of investigating po w ers by the police cannot be ruled out. It is with this inte n tion in mind tha t such interpretation should be give n to Section 154 o f the Code, as it would not only furthe r the object of law but even that of just and fair investiga t ion. More so, in the backdrop of the settled canon s of criminal de novo jurisprudence, reinvestigatio n or investigation is beyond the competence of not onl y the investigating agency but even that of the lea r ned Magistrate. T h e courts have taken this view primaril y for the reason th a t it would be opposed to the scheme o f the Code and m o re particularly Section 167(2) of the C ode. (Ref. Reeta N ag v. State of W.B. [(2009) 9 SCC 129: (2009) 3 SC C (Cri) 1051] and Vinay Tyagi v. Irsha d Ali [(2013) 5 SC C 762] of the same date.)”

¶56

In T.T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala reported in (2001) 6 SCC 181 , the Hon’ble Su p reme Court has held as follows:-

¶57

“27. A just b a lance between the fundamental rights o f the citizens unde r Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution and the expansi v e power of the police to investiga t e a cognizable o f fence has to be struck by the court. There cannot be an y controversy that sub-section (8) of Se c tion 173 CrPC empowers the police to make fu r ther investigation, obtain further evidence (both oral and documentary ) and forward a further report or repor t s to the Magistrat e . In Narang case [(1979) 2 SCC 322: 1 979 SCC (Cri) 4 7 9] it was, however, observed that it w o uld be appropria t e to conduct further investigation wit h the permission o f the court. However, the sweeping pow e r of investigation does not warrant subjecting a citizen e ach time to fresh investigation by the police in respect o f the same incide n t, giving rise to one or more cogni z able offences, co n sequent upon filing of successive F IRs whether bef o re or after filing the final report u n der Section 173( 2 ) CrPC. It would clearly be beyon d the purview of Sections 154 and 156 CrPC, nay, a ca s e of abuse of the statutory power of investigation in a given case. In our v iew a case of fresh investigation base d on the second o r successive FIRs, not being a counter- c ase,

¶58

CRLMC No. 114 of 2022 CRLMC No. 501 of 2022

¶59

Page 9 of 13

¶60

filed in co n nection with the same or conn e cted cognizable o f fence alleged to have been committed i n the course of th e same transaction and in respect of w hich pursuant to t he first FIR either investigation is u n der. way or fina l report under Section 173(2) has b een forwarded t o the Magistrate, may be a fit case for exercise of p ower under Section 482 CrPC or u n der Articles 226/ 2 27 of the Constitution.”

¶61

The Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of State of Rajasthan Vs. Surendra Singh Rathore reported in 2025 INSC 248 , held as follows:-

¶62

“8.5. In Nirmal Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab this Court held, i n the following terms that when a new discovery i s made, the second FIR would be maintainable. It was said as follows:

¶63

“67. The second FIR, in our opinion, w o uld be maintaina b le not only because there were diff e rent versions but when new discovery is made on fa c tual foundations. Discoveries may be made by the p o lice authorities a t a subsequent stage. Discovery abo u t a larger conspi r acy can also surface in another procee d ing, as for exam p le, in a case of this nature. If the p o lice authorities di d not make a fair investigation and lef t out conspiracy a s pect of the matter from the purview o f its investigation, in our opinion, as and when the s ame surfaced, it w as open to the State and/or the High C ourt to direct inv e stigation in respect of an offence whi c h is distinct and s e parate from the one for which the FI R had already been l odged.”

¶64

8.6. Apart fr o m these judgments, reference can als o be made to Ram Lal Narang v. State (Delhi Admn.) ; Surender Kaushik v. State of U.P. ; and P. Sreekumar v. State of Kerala .

¶65

9. From the above conspectus of judgments, inter alia, the followi n g principles emerge regarding the permissibilit y of the registration of a second FIR:

¶66

9.1 When t h e second FIR is counter-complain t or presents a ri v al version of a set of facts, in referen c e to which an earl i er FIR already stands registered.

¶67

CRLMC No. 114 of 2022 CRLMC No. 501 of 2022

¶68

Page 10 of 13

¶69

9.2 When th e ambit of the two FIRs is different e ven though the y may arise from the same set of circumstance s .

¶70

9.3 When in v estigation and/or other avenues revea l the earlier FIR or set of facts to be part of a l a rger conspiracy.

¶71

9.4 When i n vestigation and/or persons related to the incident brin g to the light hitherto unknown facts or circumstance s .

¶72

9.5 Where th e incident is separate; offences are simil a r or different.

¶73

10. As recorded supra, the High Court found tha t the two FIRs we r e indeed in regard to the same offence and, therefore, no t maintainable, however, in our view the scope of the two FIRs, as already referred to in p a ra 3 supra, are di s tinct. The FIR prior in point of time r e fers to a particul a r incident and the action taken there i n is limited. The second FIR pertains to the larger iss u e of widespread c o rruption in the concerned department and, therefore, is m uch larger in its scope than the pre v ious FIR.

¶74

11. Quash i ng of the FIR would nip the investig a tion into such co r ruption, in the bud. The same woul d be against the in t erest of society.

¶75

12. In th e attending facts and circumstances, the judgment re fe rred to in para 1, impugned herein i s set aside and FI R No.131 of 2022 stands restored on th e file of the Anti- C orruption Bureau, Jaipur. We direct the completion of the investigation at the earliest. Dir e ctor General of P o lice, Rajasthan, to ensure compliance w ith the directions.”

¶76

From the outline of the aforesaid decisions, it e m erges that the principle against re g istration of a second FIR, as enun c iated in T.T. Antony (supra), is not an absolute rule of prohibition. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Upkar Singh (supra), Anju Chaudhary (supra) , Nirmal Singh Kahlon (supra), and most recently in State of Rajasthan vs. Surendra Singh Rathore (supra), has consistently clari f ied that while

¶77

CRLMC No. 114 of 2022 CRLMC No. 501 of 2022

¶78

Page 11 of 13

¶79

multiplicity of FIR s on the same cause of action is im p ermissible, a subsequent FIR ma y be justified where the allegations d i sclose a rival version of the inci d ent, a broader conspiracy, wider i n volvement of accused persons, discovery of new facts or circumstances , or a scope of crime not covered w i thin the first FIR. Thus, the test is not merely one of chronology but of s a meness; if the subsequent FIR traverses a distinct field of inquiry, e ither in terms of persons involv e d, nature of allegations, or ma g nitude of offence, its maintainabil i ty cannot be denied.

¶80

Turning no w to the factual matrix of the instant c a se in the light of the aforesaid p r inciples, learned counsel for the S tate has also produced the writte n instruction of the I.I.C., Kalinga Na g ar P.S., which indicates that in Ka l inga Nagar P.S. Case No.29 of 201 7 , many more witnesses have been examined as compared to Case No.7 9 of 2016. The investigation therein has been carried out extensively, coll e cting a larger body of material, i n volving a greater number of accuse d persons, and disclosing offences d ifferent from those alleged in Case N o.79 of 2016. From the case recor d it is revealed that about 97 witnesse s had invested their money with t h e establishment belonging to the ac c used persons, and the number of a c cused arrayed is also significantly hig h er than in the earlier case. On a cl o se scrutiny of the allegations made in the complaint lodged by Basanta K umar Behera, as against the initial co m plaint lodged by Bitun Kumar Jen a (in which Behera himself was a sig n atory), though relatable to the sa m e broad transaction, the scope o f investigation concerning the Petitioners in offences under Sections 420/ 4 68/406/120-B IPC is materially dis t inct.

¶81

CRLMC No. 114 of 2022 CRLMC No. 501 of 2022

¶82

Page 12 of 13

¶83

In the earlie r complaint, the Petitioners were not e ven shown as accused, whereas th e subsequent investigation has broug h t to light their active involvement i n fraudulent activities. As held in Stat e of Rajasthan (supra) , when the e arlier action is found to be limited, a second FIR covering the larger c anvas of the fraudulent acts allegedly committed by the Petitioners cann o t be treated as identical or repetitiv e . The second FIR, therefore, is no t only broader in scope but has also cu l minated in an elaborate investig a tion implicating the Petitioners. Hence, the cognizance taken by the learned court below pursuant to the charge-sheet in Kalinga Nagar P.S. Case No.29 of 2017 cannot be eq u ated with, or treated as, the same a s that in Case No.79 of 2016.

¶84

It is also bo r ne out from the materials that the Pe t itioners, from the very inception, a llured the public into depositing the i r money with the dishonest intent i on of defrauding them. The offence s subsequently revealed thus give ri s e to a case that necessarily warrants a fair trial, both Signature Not Verified in order to secure ju s tice for the victims and to uphold the confidence of Digitally Signed Signed by: BIJAY KETAN SAHOO Reason: Authenticationsociety in the rule o f law. Location: HIGH COURT OF ORI SSA Date: 11-Sep-2025 19:09:51

¶85

This Court, t herefore, finds no illegality in the co g nizance taken by the learned cour t below; and the present Petitions, b e ing devoid of merit, stand dismiss e d.

¶86

(Chittaranjan Dash) Judge

¶87

Bijay

¶88

CRLMC No. 114 of 2022 CRLMC No. 501 of 2022

¶89

Page 13 of 13

Saubhgya Kumar Muduli v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saubhgya Kumar Muduli v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Barada Vs State

Harekrushna Parida Vs State of Odisha

Chandrasekhar Nayak Vs Harapriti Samal

Brajaraj Mahapatra Vs State of Orissa

Bidhubhusan Patra Vs Smitanjali Patra

Pankaj Kumar Muduli Vs State of Odisha