THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

1 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MEGHALAYA, MANIPUR, TRIPURA, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH) CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 98 OF 2010 1. Accrescent Way Marketing Pvt Ltd.; a Company registered under the Companies Act,1956, having its Registered office at Ganesh Bhawan, 2 nd Floor, P.P.Road,Rehabari, Guwahati, Assam. 2. Shri Tapash Debnath, Son of Sri Sudhir Chandra Debnath, R/O. Fatasil Ambari, K.K.Road, Guwahati-25. 3. Smti Jayati Bhattacharjee Debnath, wife of Sri Tapash Debnath, R/O. Fatasil Ambari,K.K.Road, Guwahati-25. -Vs- 1. The State of Assam. 2. Shri Dipak Biswas, Son of Khitish Biswas, Nepalipatti, Tezpur, District-Sonitpur. 3.Axis Bank Noonmati Branch, Guwahati, Kamrup, Assam. BEFORE.Petitioners..Respondents. THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE B.D. AGARWAL For the Petitioners : Sri PK Goswami, Sr Advocate, Sri SS Goswami, Sri D Barua. For the respondents: Sri Z Kamar, Public Prosecutor, Mr.TJ Mahanta, learned counsel for the respondent No.2, Sri P.P. Dutta. Date of hearing : 02.06.2011 Date of judgment : 19.07.2011

2 JUDGEMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) Accresent Way Marketing Pvt. Ltd. and AWM Life are sister concerns. The former one is a private limited company, whereas, the later one is a partnership firm. Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are Directors and partners respectively in the aforesaid company/firm. 2. The petitioner s company introduced a business Plan under the name and style of AWM Plan, whereunder the company used to give commission, bonus, rewards and incentives to its customers on purchasing various products and also introducing new members to purchase their products. As per the said scheme, the customers were given option to pay the price of the products in installments or adjust the subsequent installments against their commission. However, a fixed period is given to the customers for payment of the entire price of the products either in cash or adjusting the same against commission, which may be earned by them by introducing new customers as a part of the business policy. Each customers are given identification No. (ID). 3. The sister concern of the petitioner company namely AWM Life entered into an agreement with Reliance Life Insurance Company Ltd. to act as its corporate agent in its Life Insurance business. After being appointed as agent of Reliance Life Insurance Company, M/S AWM Life appointed the petitioner s company as its sole marketing consultant and accordingly, the petitioners started marketing of Insurance Policy of Reliance Life Insurance Company Ltd. 4. In the month of August, 2008, the petitioner company introduced AWM Saviour Plan, blending the business of FMCG products with insurance policy. Under this scheme, the customers can become members of the said scheme by paying one installment of the products or that of Insurance Policy and can get incentives and commission on introducing new

3 customers to achieve the maximum target. As per the said scheme, the customers were given a promise of giving more and more incentives depending upon their performance, by way of introducing new and new customers. As per the brochure of the scheme, a customer can earn upto Rs.4,00950/- by way of initial investments of Rs. 6000/- only. In this way, the petitioner s business can be termed as multi marketing level business or chain business. I reiterate here that as per the scheme, if the customers fails to introduce new customer within a certain period or does not pay the remaining installments, the said customers would forfeit his initial installment. Precisely condition No.10 stipulates that one customer has to introduce two new customers to qualify for the minimum benefit of Saviours Plan within 30 days of his/ her joining. It would be proper to reproduce the terms and conditions of the scheme in extenso, which are as below: i) The amount paid is solely towards booking/ purchase of the Product in consideration and is neither refundable nor transferable. ii) The company does not provide any guarantee for any specific description/ design/ features of the product. It will be given subject to the availability of the products at the time of actual delivery. iii) The delivery of the insurance policy to the Member is the absolute discretion of the INSURANCE COMPANY. The Company (AWM) will not be in any way held responsible for not receiving of the policy in time. iv) For partly payment of the product, the remaining amount shall have to be paid to claim the product. v) If any IBP is not able to qualify for the product from his commission income he has to pay the balance amount of the product within 90 days of joining to take delivery of the product. vi) The eligible Member (s) has to inform their senior or at the Head office to collect the product.

4 vii) Product will be delivered within a month after receiving full payment towards purchase of the product at the company s Head Office. viii) The courier/ transportation and any other incidental charges shall be borne by the beneficiary. ix) Total amount payable by the Member(s) comprise of (a) Product advance (b) business started kit (c) processing charges, (d) Service charges, (e) Internet services & (f) Incentive & Commission. x) Introduce two I.D to qualify for the minimum benefit of Saviour Plan within 30 days of joining. xi) All income depends on growth. xii) All disputes shall be subjected to Guwahati Jurisdiction only. 5. Projecting very high return of a small amount of investment, the company has been successful to make large number of people as their members. However, a good number of customers failed to retain their membership for their failure to introduce new customers and as such, the company has forfeited their initial investments, as per the terms and conditions of the scheme. 6. Having felt duped, one of the customers lodged an FIR on his own behalf and on behalf of their customers under the umbrella of an NGO on 11.02.2010 alleging that nearly 12,500 members deposited a sum of Rs. 3.75 crore on the promise that more than Rs.4 lakhs would be earned by each of them in a period of 13 months. But the company has failed to keep its promise and has not paid even the minimum amount of incentive to the customers. This FIR has been registered as Paltan Bazar Police Station Case no. 78 of 2010 under section 420/ 406 IPC. In the course of investigation, with due permission from the learned CJM, Kamrup Sections of 4/5/6 of the Prize

5 Chits and Money Circulation Scheme ( Banning) Act, 1978 have also been added. The petitioners are seeking quashing of the said FIR. 7. In the course of investigation, the I.O. wrote a letter to Axis Bank Ltd. on 22.03.2010 requesting to freeze all accounts of the petitioner s company and the personal account of its Directors. On the basis of the said request by the I.O., the bank accounts were frozen by the bank. On the prayer of the petitioners, this court, vide order dated 6.4.2010, directed the bank to allow the petitioners to operate their accounts as an interim measure. This court further ordered that Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 may not be taken into custody without leave of the court. 8. The State of Assam has filed an application for vacation or modification of the aforesaid order and has prayed that the petitioner may not be allowed to operate their account. This application has been registered as Misc. Case No. 214 of 2010. When the said application came up for consideration, the learned counsel for both the sides agreed that instead of modifying the order dated 6.4.2010, the entire criminal petition may be disposed of finally. 9. Accordingly, arguments of Sri PK Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioners and that of Sri Z Kamar, learned Public Prosecutor for the State was heard. The complainant (respondent No.2) was represented by Sri TJ Mahanta, Advocate. The Axis Bank was impleaded as respondent No. 3. But none represented the said Bank during the pendency of the criminal petition. Both the contesting parties filed several documents through their respective affidavits. I have also perused those documents.

6 10. Shri Goswami, learned senior counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioner s company have started the business of marketing various products only after registering their company with the Registrars of Companies, Assam etc and are doing their business on the basis of a scheme, which is widely circulated and made known to each and every customers. Learned senior counsel submitted that the petitioners have received good response from thousands of customers who have not only invested their money either for purchasing various products or for taking insurance policies and they are earning high returns after introducing new investors. Learned counsel submitted that as per the scheme, the original investors continues to get commission so long subsequent line of investors continue to purchase products and pay their installments regularly. According, to the learned counsel, since it is a multi level marketing, the investors income depends upon the number of new customers, he or she introduces. The learned counsel further contended that neither was there any mis-representation nor were the investors given wrong information about the nitty-gritty of the chain business and only after understanding the methodology of the scheme, informants had invested their money and a good number of them have also received satisfactory incentives. 11. Sri Goswami, learned senior counsel for the petitioners also submitted that an identical case was suo moto registered at Dibrugarh Police Station being Dibrugarh P.S. Case No.458 of 2009 under section 4 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme ( Banning) Act.1978( briefly Chit Fund Act) and after preliminary investigation, the said case was closed by the police agency itself. According to the learned counsel, since an

7 identical case has already been investigated against the petitioners, the present case should also be closed. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that it is the settled position of law if the averments made in the FIR on its face value do not constitute any offence, the High Court can quash the FIR in exercise of its plenary jurisdiction under section 482 of the Cr.P.C.. The learned counsel further submitted that an FIR can also be quashed if it is found that allegations are absurd, inherently improbable and, inter-alia, if it is found that the criminal proceeding has been launched with any malicious intention. In support of these submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioners cited a host of authorities, from the Apex Court, including the cases of State of Haryana Vs- Bhajan Lal; State of Karnataka Vs- L Munniswammy; Inder Mohan Goswami Vs- State of Uttaranchal; Pepsi Food Ltd. Vs- Special Judicial Magistrate; State of M.P. vs- Awal Kishore Gupta and few other judgments. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that while examining an application under section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court possess inherent powers to examine and take into consideration the documentary evidence of the accused persons with an avowed objective to prevent abuse of the process of law. In support of these arguments, the learned counsel laid his hands to the judgment of the Apex Court, rendered in the case of State of Orissa Vs- Devendra Nath Padi; (2005)1 SCC 568 and Rukmini Narvekar v-vijaya Satardekar; (2008) 14 SCC 1. In this cited authority, the Hon ble Supreme Court overruled the earlier decision given in the case of Satish Mehra Vs- Delhi Administration: (1996) 9 SCC 766, distinguishing discharging an accused under section 227 of the Cr.P.C. and the powers and jurisdiction of High Court under

8 section 482 thereof. Despite giving a little space to the High Court to consider defence evidence at the time of examining the sustainability of an FIR, the Hon ble Judges recorded a word of caution that such defence evidence should be unimpeachable and of sterling quality and that the defence evidence should be considered only in rare and exceptional cases. 14. At this stage, I would like to refer to another judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Ravindra Kumar Madanlal Goenka Vs- Rukmini; reported in (2009)11 SCC 529 wherein the following observations have been made regarding consideration of defence materials and also the limited scope of High Courts to interfere in the investigation : 18. While entertaining a petition under Section 482 of the CRPC, the materials furnished by the defence cannot be looked into and the defence materials can be entertained only at the time of trial. It is a well-settled position of law that when there are prima facie materials available, a petition for quashing the criminal proceedings cannot be entertained. The investigating agency should have had the freedom to go into the whole gamut of the allegations and to reach a conclusion of its own. Pre-emption of such investigation would be justified only in very extreme cases. 15. Since, the investigation agency has also invoked section 3/4/5/ of the Chit Fund Act in the FIR, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that allegations made in the FIR do not make out a case of money circulation and, as such, the FIR should be quashed on this count also. In support of these submissions, the learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Apex

9 Court rendered in the case of State of West Bengal-Vs- Swapan Kumar Guha ; (1982) 1 SCC 561. 16. Per contra, Sri TJ Mahanta, learned counsel for the complainant/respondent No.2 submitted that while exercising inherent power under section 482 of the Cr.P.C., it cannot make a roving enquiry about the truthfulness of the allegations. Mr. Mahanta also submitted that in view of the large scale cheating, the Investigating Agency should be given a free hand to bring the investigation to a logical conclusion. The learned counsel also submitted that the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Swapan Kumar Gupta (popularly known as Sanchayita investment case) is not applicable in the present in as much as the schemes that has been formulated by the petitioners are totally different and it is out and out a case of Prize Chits and Money Circulation. In support of these submissions, the learned counsel referred to the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Kuriachand Chacko Vs- State of Kerala; (2008) 8 SCC 708. Mr. Mahanta further submitted that even if there is an allegation of civil dispute, there is no bar to continue with criminal investigation, since a strong prima-facie case of cheating and mis-appropriation of investments of public at large has been made up. 17. As noted earlier, during the investigation, the I.O. got the bank account of the petitioners freezed and by virtue of the order dated 06.04.2010, this Court, defreezed the accounts and also directed the I.O. that the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 may not be taken into custody without leave of the court. Since, it was an interim order, the I.O. also filed an application for vacating or modifying the order dated 06.04.2010 and the said application has been registered as Misc. Case No.214 of 2010. In the said application, the I.O. has stated that the accused persons

10 have collected nearly 3.75 crores and they are in the process of ascertaining as to how many investors have been cheated and how much money have been misappropriated. 18. Since, the FIR was lodged by an NGO, alleging cheating of large numbers of investors, without giving full details as to how the investors were cheated; the informant filed an affidavit in this proceeding giving details of various investors who have been defrauded. In the aforesaid affidavit dated 03.05.2011, the respondent No.2 has alleged that the petitioners approached the public at large with a promise to give huge return against their investments and a large number of persons were induced to invest in the Company. In the said affidavit specific allegations have been made as to how investment of many customers has been forfeited. 19. Now, I shall turn to the main issue of quashing of the case. The legal principles regarding quashing of criminal proceedings are no more res-integra. Criterion for quashing of criminal proceedings has been lucidly crystallized in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra). The illustrative categories for quashing the criminal proceedings are as below: (i) Where the allegations made in the First Informant Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (ii) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report and other materials, if any accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence justifying an investigation by police officers under section 156 (1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate

11 within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (iii) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (iv) Where the allegation in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under section (15592 ) of the Code. (v) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can every reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (vi) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act ( Criminal Proceeding is instituted) to the institution and under which a continuance of the proceedings and/ or where there is a specific provision in the code or the concerned act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (vii) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and / or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.

12 20. The aforesaid views have been consistently approved by the Hon ble Supreme Court in a series of judgments, some of which have been cited on behalf of the petitioners. In the case of State of Maharashtra-vs- M. Devendrappa; (2002) 3 SCC 89 their lordships have dealt with the power that can be exercised ex-debito justitiae to do complete and substantial justice for the administration, for which alone, court exists. Their lordships have further observed that it would be abuse of the process of court to allow any action that would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. A note of caution has also been given in the judgment, so that the extraordinary power is not misused. The Hon ble Apex Court has further held that while examining an application under section 482 CrPC, it is not permitted to meticulously examine the materials available before the trial court. 21. Needless to say that justice does not always mean rewarding the applicant/petitioner. The process of justice must be fair and both parties must be dealt with even-handed. In a given case quashing of a criminal proceeding may amount to doing justice and sometime quashing a genuine case half-way may also result into injustice. In the case before me, it is true that a casual allegation of cheating of many people was initially made in the FIR. However, in the affidavit dated 3.5.2011, the complainant has cited specific cases of duping many people. Whether, the allegations are true or false, the same would require thorough investigation and at this stage, no definite view can be expressed by this Court. The Hon ble Supreme Court has time and again reiterated that Investigating agency should be given free hand to investigate the allegations and such powers of investigation should not ordinarily be curtailed halfway by the High Court under the garb of phrase to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, employed in Sec.482 CrPC.

13 22. I do agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners that the inherent power of the High Court should be exercised to do complete justice and to prevent abuse of the process of law or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. However, it is not such a clear case, where it can be said that the allegations are absolutely absurd and that there is no prima facie case at all, to stop further investigation. I would also like to make it clear that there is no pleading on behalf of the petitioners that the complaint has been filed with any ulterior motive or to wreck vengeance due to any enmity between the complainants and the accused persons. 23. With regard to the offence under Chit Fund Act also, it would not be proper for me to express any opinion whether the schemes floated by the petitioners would amount to a money circulation scheme. Any opinion in this regard may prejudice the Investigating Agency. In other words, the Investigating Agency may also be required to take the opinion of Reserve Bank of India or the Finance Department of the Government whether the schemes being operated by the petitioners are legal and can be allowed to continue, more particularly, under the terms and conditions stipulated therein. 24. The next question that arises for consideration before me is as to whether the I.O. should be allowed to freeze/seize the bank accounts of the petitioners to protect the investments of the customers and also to prevent the accused persons run away with the hard earned money of poor and illiterate persons. This issue has stemmed-out of the order dated 06.04.2010 whereby a learned Judge of this Court has interfered with and order of the Investigation officer to the banks of the petitioners to freeze their accounts. By the said order, the

14 learned Single Judge has allowed operation of the bank accounts on the submission of the learned counsel that the petitioner issues nearly 50,000 cheques in average per month and a blanket freezing of the bank account would seriously jeopardize the business of the company. The said submissions were reiterated by Sri Goswami, learned senior counsel for the petitioners and also cited the judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of State of Maharashtra -Vs- Tapas D. Neogi: 1999 (7) SCC 685. 25. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor, Mr. Kamar for the State as well as Sri Mahanta, learned counsel for the complainants submitted that the company has collected huge amount of money and a good number of customers have not been paid their dues and their deposits have also been freezed illegally. The learned counsels reiterated that the petitioners are running an illegal business without obtaining any license/noc from the Reserve Bank of India and other government departments to run the business of multi level marketing, which is in the nature of money circulation scheme. According to the learned counsels, apart from the offence of cheating, the nature of the business being operated by the petitioners would also attract penal provisions of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978. On these premises, the learned counsels urged that the accused persons/ petitioners shall be prevented from operating the business and/or the amount standing in their bank accounts should be freezed in the larger interest of the investors. 26. After analyzing divergent views of various High Courts, as to whether a bank account can also be considered as a property within the meaning of Section 102 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the Hon ble Supreme

15 Court, while answering the question in the affirmative, has clearly held that the word property employed in Section 102 Cr.P.C. includes bank accounts of accused persons and their relations and the same can be seized if the I.O. suspects that such property is a stolen one or if it is ill-gotten property or if it is suspected that such money has been accumulated by way of committing an offence. In the said case, the Hon ble Supreme Court also overruled the decision of Gauhati High Court, given in the case of Purbanchal Road Service Vs-State; (1991 CriLJ 2798) and various judgments of other High Courts. The apex court has laid down the law in the following words: 12. Having considered the divergent views taken by different High Courts with regard to the power of seizure under Section 102 of the CrPC, and whether the bank account can be held to be 'property' within the meaning of said Section 102 (1), we see no justification to give any narrow interpretation to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is well known that corruption in public offices has become so rampant that it has become difficult to cope up with the same. Then again the time consumed by the Courts in concluding the trials is another factor which should be borne in mind in interpreting the provisions of Section 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the underlying object engrafted therein, inasmuch as if there can. be no order of seizure of the bank account of the accused then the entire money deposited in a bank which is ultimately held in the trial to be the outcome of the illegal gratification, could be withdrawn by the accused and the Courts would be powerless to get the said money which has any direct link with the commission of the offence committed by the accused as a public officer. We are, therefore, persuaded to take the view that the bank account of the accused or any of his relation is 'property' within the meaning of Section 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code and a police officer in course of investigation can seize or prohibit the operation of the said account if such assets have direct links with the commission of the offence for which the police officer is investigating into. The contrary view expressed by Karnataka, Gauhati and Allahabad High Courts, does not represent the correct law..

16 27. In the case before me, the investigation can be said to be at an early stage. In other words, the learned Public Prosecutor, Mr. Z Kamar failed to produce concrete evidence that the petitioners are likely to flee away with the money by closing the business abruptly. It is true that the informants have made specific allegations of duping nearly 80 persons of their deposits. However, the allegations are thoroughly disputed. According to the learned counsels for the petitioners, initial deposit of some of the customers has been forfeited in view of the terms and conditions of the scheme. I have already noted in this judgment that the investigating agency shall take into consideration the terms and conditions of the schemes to take a final decision whether such terms and conditions have been incorporated in the schemes with a calculated and oblique motive to befool the customers at large. Under such circumstances, it is not desirable, at this stage to freeze all the bank accounts of the petitioners completely. However, the I.O. shall be at liberty to direct the banks to keep certain minimum deposits in the petitioners accounts, after assessing the loss suffered by the investors at regular intervals, until the investigation is completed. The investing officer shall also be at liberty to direct the banks to freeze the accounts of the petitioners, once he collects tangible evidence that the accused persons business is illegal or if it is found that the petitioners are indulging in siphoning of the funds clandestinely. 28. In the aforesaid order dated 06.04.2010, this court has also directed the I.O. not to take into custody the accused persons, without leave of the court. The said order was an interim one. In the case of Panful Nessa Vs- Meeraj Ali; reported in (2008) 7 SCC 759: 2009 (2) GLT (SC) 50, the Hon ble Supreme Court has observed that while examining an application under section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Courts are not empowered to pass any orders, in the nature of anticipatory bail.

17 29. In view of the said judgment, the interim order dated 06.04.2010 is further modified to the extent that the I.O. shall be competent to arrest the petitioners or any person of their company, who are found to be involved in the offences. Since, granting or refusing anticipatory bail is not in my domain, while examining an application U/s 482 CrPC; I decline to comment in this regard. The investigating officer is free to exercise his own jurisdiction, keeping in mind the well established principles of law of arrest. In other words, the recourse of physical arrest shall not be taken in a routine manner and without collecting sufficient evidence of commission of offences. Without multiplying authorities and various judicial pronouncements with regard to maintaining restraint regarding arrest of persons, I would prefer to quote the guidelines given by the Apex Court in the case of Joginder Kumar Vs. State of U.P.; (1994) 4 SCC 260, which are as below: 20. In India, Third Report of the National Police Commission at page 32 also suggested: An arrest during the investigation of a cognizable case may be considered justified in one or other of the following circumstances : (i) The case involves a grave offence like murder, dacoity, robbery, rape etc., and it is necessary to arrest the accused and bring his movements under restraint to infuse confidence among the terror stricken victims. (ii) The accused is likely to abscond and evade the processes of law. (iii) The accused is given to violent behaviour and is likely to commit further offences unless his movements are brought under restraint. (iv) The accused is a habitual offender and unless kept in custody he is likely to commit similar offences again. It would be desirable to insist through departmental instructions that a police

18 officer making an arrest should also record in the case diary the reasons for making the arrest, thereby clarifying his conformity to the specified guidelines... The above guidelines are merely the incidents of personal liberty guaranteed under the Constitution of India. No arrest can be made because it is lawful for the Police Officer to do so. The existence of the power to arrest is one thing. The justification of the exercise of it is quite another. The Police Officer must be able to justify the arrest apart from his power to do so. Arrest and detention in police lock-up of a person can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. No arrest can be made in a routine manner on a mere allegation of commission of an offence made against a person. It would be prudent for a Police Officer in the interest of protection of the constitutional rights of a citizen and perhaps in his own interest that no arrest be made without a reasonable satisfaction reached after some investigation as to the genuineness and bona fides of a complaint and a reasonable belief both as to the person's complicity and even so as to the need to effect arrest. Denying a person of his liberty is a serious matter. The recommendations of the Police Commission merely reflect the constitutional concomitants of the fundamental right to personal liberty and freedom. A person is not liable to arrest merely on the suspicion of complicity in an offence. There must be some reasonable justification in the opinion of the Officer effecting the arrest that such arrest is necessary and justified. Except in heinous offences, an arrest must be avoided if a police Officer issues notice to person to attend to Station House and not to leave Station without permission would do. 30. In the result, the Criminal Petition stands dismissed. Criminal Misc. Case No. 214 of 2010 filed by the State for modification of the order dated 06.04.2010 also stands disposed of, in terms of the observations made herein above. 31. Before parting with the judgment it would be pertinent to mention here that very recently scores of identical cases have been lodged and registered in many

19 police stations in Assam, against various firms and companies, having found prima-facie case of fraud upon public at large by way of floating fictitious/bogus companies or by way of operating money circulation schemes, without obtaining proper licence/permission from appropriate authorities. Many such cases came to the notice of this court, while considering bail applications of accused persons and it was found that the investigation was either slow or not being conducted in scientific manner. The present case is also pending investigation since last more than one and half year and the I.O. has not been able to come to a definite conclusion. This may be due to complex nature of the issue involved therein. 32. Keeping in mind the legal issues involved in the case/cases and in the interest of large number of people, who are allegedly duped by various companies, the Director General of Police, Assam is directed to constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT), with senior officers, and such SIT may be empowered to consolidate all identical cases and investigate the same simultaneously. Such an approach would not only expedite the investigation of large number of cases, it will also bring the cases to logical end with sound reasoning, in view of manifold evidence, which may come in different cases. nivedita J U D G E