Tapabrata Chakraborty, J. - (1.) The writ petition has been preferred primarily praying for the following relief : "A writ of/or in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the Respondents, their men, agents and/or assign to rescind and set aside all steps taken against the Petitioner pertaining to and connected with FIRs being Dum Dum P.S. Case Nos. 1001, 1003, 1004 and 1142 of 2016 including Chargesheet filed in connection with Dum Dum P.S. Case Nos. 1142 of 2016 as also FIR being Chinsurah P.S. Case No. 496 of 2016."
(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts are that : A. On 14th October, 2016 Chinsurah P.S. Case No. 496 of 2016 (in short, Case No. 496/16) was registered on the basis of a suo moto First Information Report (in short, FIR) by one Nirupam Mandal, Sub-Inspector of Police attached to Chinsurah, Police Station (in short, P.S.) alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 379/411/413/414/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, IPC) against one Subhas Sarkar and one Umesh Dhali stating inter alia that upon receiving a secret information from a reliable source that some persons had entered into the abandoned factory shed of Dunlop Shahgunj Factory by breaking open the walls and were stealing materials from the factory premises upon using various tools/gas cutters etc. and were carrying the fabric scrap materials in two Tata 407 vehicles, he informed the matter to the I.C. Chinsurah P.S. and as per the direction of the I.C. he reached Gandheswari Ghat on Chinsurah Tribeni Road alongwith two assistant sub-inspectors and found two Tata 407 vehicles loaded with huge quantities of scrap fabric pieces and managed to apprehend the drivers of the said vehicles who, upon interrogation, disclosed their identity and stated that they were engaged in stealing materials from Dunlop area premises and in purchasing stolen articles from other miscreants in regular manner; B. Thereafter, on 18th October, 2016, Dum Dum P.S. Case No.1001 of 2016 (in short, Case No.1001/16) was registered on the basis of a suo moto FIR by one Partha Ranjan Mandal, Officer-inCharge, Dum Dum P.S. alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 188/427/435/436/120B of IPC against the petitioner and the managerial staff of Jessop and Company Limited (in short, Jessop) responsible for functioning of the factory stating inter alia that a telephonic information was received on 17th October, 2016 that a flame of fire had been seen inside Jessop Factory of Kamalpur side and thereafter he reached Gate no.28 at about 18:55 hours and found flames of fire with fumes at a shed beside the dispensary of Jessop which is known as store. It was noticed that at the site, there was no wooden furniture and electricity connection was also out of service. It was also noted that the entire factory premises was over seventy acres of land having 29 gates, several sheds and workshops and there were numerous holes in the boundary wall and dense bushes covered the area, making it impossible for a person to locate another person from a distance of one foot. It was also noted that the proprietor of Jessop had preferred writ petitions in 2013 and 2014 seeking police assistance but the Court directions were not complied with by the authorities of Jessop and they had abandoned the premises which suggest criminal and calculated omission with some ulterior motive on part of the petitioner and the managers responsible for functioning of the factory; C. On 18th October, 2016, itself another complaint was lodged by the Officer-in-Charge, Maniktala Fire Station stating inter alia that a devastating fire took place at Railway Wagon and Coach Building three-storied factory shed near gate no.28 and that the fire spread on all floors originating from innumerable fire pockets throughout the shed and that it seemed to be a sabotage. It was also stated that the access of fire engines was obstructed by keeping two damaged vehicles near gate no.28 and that no inbuilt fire and life safety arrangements were installed inside the factory resulting in gross violation of Sections 11C & 12 of West Bengal Fire Service Act, 1950, constituting punishable offences under Sections 11J, 11M and 26 of the said Act. On the basis of the said complaint, Dum Dum P.S. Case No. 1003 of 2016 (in short, Case No.1003/16) dated 18th October, 2016 was registered under Sections 427/435/436/120B of IPC and Sections 11J/11M and 26 of the West Bengal Fire Service Act, 1950; D. Thereafter on 19th October, 2016, a Dum Dum P.S. Case No. 1004 of 2016 (in short Case No.1004/16) was registered on the basis of a suo moto FIR by one Satya Dulal Dutta, Sub Inspector of Police, Dum Dum P.S. under Sections 379/411 of IPC against one Sumit Bhattacharjee, Palan Adhikary, Chottu Roy and Prasanta Mondal for theft of 10 Aluminium corrugated sheets on the night of 18th/19th October, 2016; E. On 25th November, 2016 a complaint was lodged by Deputy Director/Railway Stores (I&S), Railway Board, Kolkata, stating inter alia that Ministry of Railways, New Delhi, placed a contract dated 6th September, 2012 for manufacture of ACEMU coaches on Jessop and against the said contract M/s. BHEL supplied 8 sets of traction electrics valuing Rs.35.85 crores but due to nonperformance on the part of Jessop, the contract had to be cancelled on 22nd April, 2016 and against a further contract dated 2nd February, 2009, a rake was not supplied by Jessop for which it availed free supply of 3 sets of traction electrics and a stage payment totalling an amount of Rs.11.34 crores and that pertaining to another Wagon contract, free supply wheel sets, bearings and bogeys for BVZI wagons valuing Rs.2.62 crores as supplied was lying with Jessop and despite various reminders, a total amount of Rs.49.81 crores had not been returned. On the basis of the said complaint, Dum Dum P.S. Case No. 1142 of 2016 (in short Case No. 1142/16) dated 25th November, 2016 was registered under Sections 420/406/409 of IPC; F. Challenging the three FIRs (1001/16, 1003/16 and 1004/16), three independent applications under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, CrPC) were preferred being CRR 3524 of 2016, CRR 3543 of 2016 and AST 311 of 2016 in which orders were passed on 26th October, 2016 observing that there is no scope to stay the proceedings and the petitioner was directed to cooperate with the Investigating Officer (in short, I.O.) and it was also observed that so long the petitioner will cooperate with the I.O., no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner. An application for issuing warrant of arrest against the petitioner was submitted on 7th November, 2016 but such prayer was refused by the Magistrate on 8th November, 2016, as the Hon'ble High Court was in seisin over the matter. In the midst thereof, the petitioner challenged the order passed on 26th October, 2016 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and by an order dated 18th November, 2016, the Special Leave Petitions were dismissed as withdrawn observing that "as we find that the petitioner is duly protected by the impugned order passed by the High Court, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw these petitions"; G. Subsequent thereto, Jessop preferred a writ petition in connection with FIR 1142/16 [WP 28007 (W) of 2016] and pursuant to an order passed in the same on 12th December, 2016, a joint inspection was conducted and a report was filed. In the midst thereof, an application under Section 482 CrPC was filed by Jessop, inter alia, praying for quashing the FIR 1142/16 (CRR 4022 of 2016). At the same time, the petitioner preferred four anticipatory bail petitions in connection with (Case Nos.496, 1001, 1003 & 1004). All the said applications were rejected by an order dated 23rd December, 2016. Subsequent thereto, investigation in two FIRs 1142 & 496 was concluded and charge sheets were filed on 8th March, 2017 and 9th April, 2018 respectively.
(3.) Mr. Ayan Bhattacharya, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner argues that the cause of action of FIR 1003/16 is the same as that of FIR 1001/16. The place of occurrence was Jessop factory and the date of occurrence was October 17, 2016. In view thereof, the FIR lodged by the Fire Department could not have given rise to a separate prosecution. The FIR in 1003/16 in fact militates against the FIR 1001/16. In view of the fact that Jessop factory was abandoned and a police picket was posted there, the police authorities were thus responsible for the delay caused to the fire authorities to reach the spot but such blame has been shifted to the management of Jessop. There cannot be two FIRs in respect of the same offence. In support of such contention reliance has been placed upon the judgments delivered in the cases of T.T. Antony vs- State of Kerala & Ors., 2001 6 SCC 181 and Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah vs- The Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr., 2013 6 SCC 348.;