Quashing petition limits on investigation, second FIR, and coercive process: distinct transactions and non-cooperation justified refusal of relief.

Interim protection in a quashing petition is available only in rare and exceptional cases where the FIR discloses no cognizable offence or continued investigation would cause miscarriage of justice; on the facts, allegations of diversion and siphoning of funds required investigation, so stay of investigation was refused. A later FIR was not barred as a second FIR because it arose from a distinct factual foundation and separate transaction, despite some common parties. Non-bailable warrants were also not recalled because the petitioner had not joined investigation despite notice and had failed to honour an assurance to appear. The Court therefore declined interference at the investigative stage and left the petitioner to ordinary remedies in law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether interim protection and stay of investigation could be granted in a quashing petition on the facts of the case; (ii) whether the registration of the subsequent FIR was barred as a second FIR arising from the same transaction; (iii) whether the non-bailable warrants issued against the petitioner were liable to be recalled.

Issue (i): Whether interim protection and stay of investigation could be granted in a quashing petition on the facts of the case

Analysis: Interim interference at the investigation stage is warranted only in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice or where the FIR does not disclose any cognizable offence. The allegations disclosed serious irregularities, diversion and siphoning of funds, and the Court found that the matter could not be short-circuited at a premature stage. The existence of parallel company-law proceedings did not bar criminal investigation, and the petitioner was repeatedly advised to avail the remedy of anticipatory bail rather than seek a blanket stay on investigation through inherent jurisdiction.

Conclusion: Interim protection and stay of investigation were refused.

Issue (ii): Whether the registration of the subsequent FIR was barred as a second FIR arising from the same transaction

Analysis: The Court found that the earlier FIR and the impugned FIR were founded on different factual foundations and different alleged transactions. The earlier FIR concerned a specific entrustment and alleged misappropriation in relation to one distinct transaction, whereas the later FIR alleged multiple instances of diversion and siphoning of company funds by different functionaries. The mere commonality of complainants and one accused did not make the two FIRs identical or legally impermissible as a second FIR.

Conclusion: The challenge to the subsequent FIR on the ground of a barred second FIR failed.

Issue (iii): Whether the non-bailable warrants issued against the petitioner were liable to be recalled

Analysis: The petitioner had not joined investigation despite notices and a specific assurance given before the Court that he would appear when directed in writing. In those circumstances, the issuance of coercive process could not be termed mechanical or unjustified. The Court distinguished the authorities relied upon by the petitioner because, unlike those cases, the petitioner here had not cooperated with investigation and had continued to avoid appearance.

Conclusion: The non-bailable warrants were not liable to be recalled.

Final Conclusion: The Court declined to interfere at the investigative stage, upheld the permissibility of criminal action notwithstanding the pending company-law proceedings, and left the petitioner to pursue ordinary remedies available in law.

Ratio Decidendi: In a quashing petition, interim protection against investigation and coercive process can be granted only in rare and exceptional cases where the FIR does not disclose a cognizable offence or continuation of investigation would amount to a miscarriage of justice; a distinct later FIR based on a separate transaction is not barred merely because an earlier FIR exists.

---