SATYAJIT GANGULY Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.