JUDGMENT & ORDER : PRANJAL DAS, J. 1. Heard Mr. D. Das, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. A.V. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. M. Kumari, learned Retainer Counsel, CBI assisted by Ms. P. Majumder, learned counsel. 2. Invoking the powers under Section 528 BNSS, 2023, the petitioner, herein, is seeking quashing of the FIR and consequential proceedings pertaining to RC2172025A0019 of 18.08.2025. It is stated that the petitioner is the son of one Pradeep Kumar Kasera, who is the proprietor of M/S Industrial Trade and Agencies, having a valid GST registration certificate and trade license. The said firm has its office at Makum Road, Tinsukia. It is stated that on the basis of a source information, an FIR was registered being RC2172025A0012 under Section 7,9,10 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, (herein after the PC Act) read with Section 61(2), B.N.S. 2023. 3. The allegation in the FIR was that Prayas Chakraborty, DGM Oil India, Duliajan, in connivance with Jyoti Kumar Singh, DGM, United Drilling Tools Ltd., Noida, and some unknown public servants were indulging in corrupt and illegal activities in matters of awarding of contracts, causing wrongful gain to themselves. It is stated that investigation of the aforesaid case resulted in a charge-sheet, but the present petitioner was not named therein. 4. It is submitted that during the pendency of the investigation into the aforesaid case, the I.O. of the case, who was an Inspector of CBI, made a separate complaint dated 18.08.2025 against the aforementioned Prayas Chakraborty and also the petitioner. The said complaint was registered into FIR No. RC2172025A014 dated 18.08.2025. It is stated that in the said FIR, the petitioner approached this Court for anticipatory bail, which was granted after hearing. 5. The primary contention of the petitioner is that the FIR dated 18.08.2025, resulting in the Case No. RC2172025A019 is a proceeding by way of a second FIR on the same set of facts and therefore, in terms of the settled principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court in this regard, the same is barred and hence, all the proceedings emanating from this purportedly second FIR should be quashed. 6. 6. The CBI submitted a written objection vehemently contending that the factual matrix giving rise to the subsequent FIRs are different and stand on different factual compass and therefore, not hit by the principle pertaining to bar on second FIR over the same facts. 7. It is stated and contended that the implication against the petitioner was revealed with regard to a separate subject matter during the investigation of the first case and therefore, there was no option but to file a separate complaint leading to registration of the subsequent criminal proceeding. 8. Mr. D. Das, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the contents of both the FIR are same and therefore the second FIR is barred by law. It is also submitted that the allegations arrive out of a single transaction and therefore, there could not be a second FIR over the same. It is submitted that after completion of investigation in the first FIR, the petitioner was not sent up for trial in the charge-sheet. 9. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that it was always open to the Investigating Officer to submit a supplementary charge-sheet upon discovery of any new facts and that filing of a separate criminal proceeding is not justified in the instant case. 10. Referring to the order of this Court granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner in the instant proceeding, the Learned Senior Counsel submits that there is a clear observation of the Court that on the basis of materials prima facie, ingredients of a larger conspiracy was not found and that had a bearing on the order eventually granting bail to the petitioner. 11. In support of his contentions, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner relies upon the following decisions:- (i) Babubhai Vs. State of Gujarat and Others (2010) 12 SCC 254 , (ii) T.T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala & Ors. (2001) 6 SCC 181 , 12. On the other hand, the learned Retainer Counsel, CBI submits that the circumstances and facts of both the FIRs are different. It is submitted that the first FIR was pertaining to illegalities and corrupt activities with regard to a tender bearing number GEM/2024/B/5237250 and that the subsequent criminal proceeding pertained to corruption with regard to tender number GEM/2024/B/5021900. On the other hand, the learned Retainer Counsel, CBI submits that the circumstances and facts of both the FIRs are different. It is submitted that the first FIR was pertaining to illegalities and corrupt activities with regard to a tender bearing number GEM/2024/B/5237250 and that the subsequent criminal proceeding pertained to corruption with regard to tender number GEM/2024/B/5021900. It is submitted that during the search of the petitioner's house, two gold chains were found, which were given as a bribe to him by the petitioner on behalf of his firm with regard to award of tender. It is also submitted that in both the cases, the firms are different, the tenders are different and work orders are also different. 13. The learned Retainer Counsel, CBI contends that it would be misleading to say that they arise out of the same transaction. It is also submitted that observations in the bail order do not determine the merits of the case for the purpose of exercising jurisdiction of quashing. It is submitted that the RC RC2172025A0012 cannot be linked to RC2172025A0019 and cannot be called as a second FIR on the same allegations. 14. The learned Retainer Counsel representing the CBI cites the following decisions in support of her contentions:- (i) Anju Chaudhary Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another (2013) 6 SCC 384 , (ii) Tarun Kumar Vs. Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement in 2023 INSC 1006 (iii) Dinesh Sharma Vs. Emgee Cables and communication Ltd. 2025 INSC 571 , (iv) Babubhai Vs. State of Gujarat and Others (2010) 12 SCC 254 , (v) Faujdar Singh Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh through Superintendent of Police, CBI in Criminal Misc. Case No. 4142/2012, (vi) State of Rajasthan Vs. Surendra Singh Rathore, 2025 INSC 248 . 15. I have perused the relevant materials, considered the rival submissions and perused the case laws. 16. It is no longer res-integra that over the same set of facts or allegations, second FIR cannot be filed. In this context, reference may be made to the leading decisions of Babubhai Vs. State of Gujarat and Others (2010) 12 SCC 254 and T.T. Antony Vs State Of Kerala & Ors., 2001 (6) SCC 181 and the relevant paragraphs of Babubhai (supra) gainfully reproduced herein below:- 13. In Ram Lal Narang Vs. Om Prakash Narang & Anr. In this context, reference may be made to the leading decisions of Babubhai Vs. State of Gujarat and Others (2010) 12 SCC 254 and T.T. Antony Vs State Of Kerala & Ors., 2001 (6) SCC 181 and the relevant paragraphs of Babubhai (supra) gainfully reproduced herein below:- 13. In Ram Lal Narang Vs. Om Prakash Narang & Anr. AIR 1979 SC 1791 , this Court considered a case wherein two FIRs had been lodged. The first one formed part of a subsequent larger conspiracy which came to the light on receipt of fresh information. Some of the conspirators were common in both the FIRs and the object of conspiracy in both the cases was not the same. This Court while considering the question as to whether investigation and further proceedings on the basis of both the FIRs was permissible held that no straitjacket formula can be laid down in this regard. The only test whether two FIRs can be permitted to exist was whether the two conspiracies were identical or not. After considering the facts of the said case, the Court came to the conclusion that both conspiracies were not identical. Therefore, lodging of two FIRs was held to be permissible. 14. In T.T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala & Ors. (2001) 6 SCC 181 this Court dealt with a case wherein in respect of the same cognizable offence and same occurrence two FIRs had been lodged and the Court held that:- There can be no second FIR and no fresh investigation on receipt of every subsequent information in respect of the same cognizable offence or same occurrence giving rise to one or more cognizable offences. The investigating agency has to proceed only on the information about commission of a cognizable offence which is first entered in the Police Station diary by the Officer In-charge under Section 158 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter called the Cr.P.C.) and all other subsequent information would be covered by Section 162 Cr.P.C. for the reason that it is the duty of the Investigating Officer not merely to investigate the cognizable offence report in the FIR but also other connected offences found to have been committed in the course of the same transaction or the same occurrence and the Investigating Officer has to file one or more reports under Section 173 Cr.P.C. Even after submission of the report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., if the Investigating Officer comes across any further information pertaining to the same incident, he can make further investigation, but it is desirable that he must take the leave of the Court and forward the further evidence, if any, with further report or reports under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. In case the officer receives more than one piece of information in respect of the same incident involving one or more than one cognizable offences such information cannot properly be treated as an FIR as it would, in effect, be a second FIR and the same is not in conformity with the scheme of the Cr.P.C.” 17. In recent decision of State of Rajasthan Vs. Surendra Singh Rathore, 2025 INSC 248 relied upon by the CBI, the Hon’ble Apex Court, after referring to the leading cases on the subject of second FIR, summarized the principles in Para-9 as follows:- “9. From the above conspectus of judgments, inter alia, the following principles emerge regarding the permissibility of the registration of a second FIR: 9.1 When the second FIR is counter-complaint or presents a rival version of a set of facts, in reference to which an earlier FIR already stands registered. 9.2 When the ambit of the two FIRs is different even though they may arise from the same set of circumstances. 9.3 When investigation and/or other avenues reveal the earlier FIR or set of facts to be part of a larger conspiracy. 9.4 When investigation and/or persons related to the incident bring to the light hitherto unknown facts or circumstances. 9.5 Where the incident is separate; offences are similar or different.” 18. 9.3 When investigation and/or other avenues reveal the earlier FIR or set of facts to be part of a larger conspiracy. 9.4 When investigation and/or persons related to the incident bring to the light hitherto unknown facts or circumstances. 9.5 Where the incident is separate; offences are similar or different.” 18. Thus, with regard to same or identical allegations, only one FIR is permissible and any subsequent FIR would be more in the nature of a statement recorded before police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (now 180 BNSS). The position of law being settled by now, the disputes on such subject matter arise as to whether the second FIR assailed by a petitioner in a proceeding like this is indeed on a separate facts or on identical facts. 19. On the touchstone of these principles, the factual matrix of this case and the contentions of both the sides have to be analyzed to determine as to whether the second criminal proceeding assailed by the petitioner side is permissible to be continued. 20. I have carefully gone through the prosecution materials pertaining to RC2172025A0012. The allegation was that accused Prayas Chakravorty, DGM Oil India in connivance with Jyoti Kumar Singh, General Manager of M/S United Drilling Tools Limited, Noida, were indulging in corrupt practices regarding award of contractual work and clearance of bills. 21. It is stated in the materials that the said accused demanded 70 grams of gold ornaments but he was offered Rs. 7,00,000/- of bribe in cash whereupon, he said that he should be given gold as demanded instead of cash. It is alleged that thereupon, the accused Jyoti Kumar Singh told him that he cannot arrange gold due to some reasons and he would deliver Rs. 7,00,000/- in cash. Subsequently, the proceeding was initiated and the accused person Prayas Chakravorty apprehended later. 22. It is stated that the investigation revealed that a tender No. GEM/2024/B/5237250 dated 01.08.2024 of Rs 13.73 crores was awarded by Oil India to United Drilling Tools Limited for installation of hydraulic oil and winch and the alleged acts of bribery was with regard to the said award of contract and clearance of bills. 23. Now, I will take up the prosecution materials pertaining to the second FIR being RC2172025A0019 dated 18.08.2025. 23. Now, I will take up the prosecution materials pertaining to the second FIR being RC2172025A0019 dated 18.08.2025. The allegations were that the said Prayas Chakravorthy, DGM, Oil India, Duliajan, along with the petitioner and others indulged in corrupt practices regarding allotment of tender No. GEM/2024/B/5021900 dated 07.06.2024 of approximately Rs. 3 crores in favour of M/S Industrial Trade and Agencies of which the petitioner's father is the proprietor. The contract was regarding installation of Gensets. During the investigation of RC2172025A0012, the accused Prayas Chakravarthy, DGM, Oil India was arrested and during interrogation, he revealed that he had received two gold chains from the petitioner on 12.04.2025 as illegal gratification for favouring this firm, Industrial Trade and Agencies against a tender of Rs 3 crores for supply of Gensets. 24. It is alleged that the petitioner Tusar Kasera paid the illegal gratification to Prayas Chakravarthy in the form of two gold chains. On the basis of these materials, the complaint was lodged whereupon RC2172025A0019 was registered and investigation started. As already mentioned above, the petitioner secured anticipatory bail in the said RC2172025A0019 from this Court. 25. Thus, upon producing the materials, I find force in the contention of the CBN that both the proceedings pertain to two different tenders being GEN/2024/B/5021900 and GEN/2024/B/5237256, they also pertain to alleged bribery with regard to awarding of contracts on two different subject matters in as much as tender No. GEN/2024/B/5237250 pertain to installation of certain kind of machinery by the United Tools Noida, whereas tender GEN/2024/B/5021900 pertain to alleged bribery with regard to an award of Rs 3 crores in favour of Industrial Trade and Equipment pertaining to the petitioner for supply of Jain Sets. As laid down in T.T. Antony (supra) and Babubhai (supra) , only when the allegations are on identical factual compass that a second FIR would be prohibited by law. 26. In the instant case, the accused Priyas Chakraborty, DGM Oil India is a common accused in both the cases and both the cases pertain to alleged bribery in awarding of contracts. However, at the cost of repetition, it has to be said that the subject matter and the factual matrix which has given rise to the two different proceedings stand on different footings. 27. However, at the cost of repetition, it has to be said that the subject matter and the factual matrix which has given rise to the two different proceedings stand on different footings. 27. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, there is no doubt in the mind of this Court that - the CBI for the allegations with regard to the alleged bribery of Prayas Chakraborty on the part of the firm of the petitioner - could not have filed a supplementary charge-sheet in RC2172025A0012. The only legal lawful course of action open to the CBI upon discovery of the incriminating materials in the second matter was to file a different complaint, which was accordingly done. 28. The decision in Babubhai (supra) relied upon by the petitioner side, would not come to the assistance of the petitioner side - as in terms of the principles laid down in various decisions, including Surendra Singh Rathod (supra) , it is clear that only when the second FIR is sought to be lodged on identical allegations or factual matrix as the earlier one - that the second FIR would be barred and liable to be quashed. However, as discussed above, the same is not the case here as the second FIR and criminal proceeding has been initiated by the CBI against the same accused with regard to bribery pertaining to another tender and another party being the petitioner and their firm. 29. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case and in view of the above discussion, I find the criminal petition seeking quashing of the FIR and proceedings of RC2172025A0019 to be devoid of merit and therefore, the criminal petition stands dismissed 30. The criminal petition stands disposed of.