Criminal Proceedings for Substantially Similar Allegations Cannot be Quashed if the Trial has Commenced Evidence Stage

The petitioner, an agent for the "Prior Group Company," filed an application under Section 482 r/w Section 401 of the Cr.P.C. to quash GR Case No. 249/2012 (Tinsukia PS Case No. 106/2012)

The petitioner argued that the case arose from the same cause of action as a separate Jorhat-based case (GR Case No. 289/2012), which had already been taken over by the CBI and was pending in Guwahati

He contended that two FIRs cannot be lodged against the same accused for the same cause of action

The State countered that the Tinsukia case involved a separate branch/entity and a distinct place of occurrence, thus constituting independent allegations

1. Whether the criminal proceedings in GR Case No. 249/2012 should be quashed on the ground that they arise from the same cause of action as a pre-existing FIR

2. Whether the court should exercise its inherent powers to quash a proceeding that has already reached the stage of evidence

The Court considered the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) to prevent abuse of the process of law or to secure the ends of justice

It also assessed the principles governing the "same cause of action" in criminal law relative to Section 120B/420 of the IPC and Sections 4, 5, and 6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978, which prohibit the promotion or conduct of money circulation schemes

The Court evaluated the petitioner's claim of "double jeopardy" or procedural duplication against the State’s assertion of distinct territorial jurisdictions and entities.

While the petitioner argued that the CBI’s involvement in the Jorhat case covered the scope of his activities, the Court noted that the Tinsukia case involved specific allegations within that district

Critically, the Court observed that the trial in the Tinsukia case had already progressed significantly, with evidence having already been recorded

The Court reasoned that once a trial reaches the evidentiary stage, the trial court becomes the most appropriate forum to adjudicate the merits of the allegations, and exercising inherent powers to quash at this late stage was unwarranted

The Court granted the petitioner liberty to approach the appropriate forum with an application for the transfer of the case to a more convenient location, such as Guwahati, given his health issues and the pendency of related cases there

Holding: Quashing denied; liberty to seek transfer granted