Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
ARAVIND KUMAR, J.
M.S. Kumar S/o Shankranna – Appellant
Versus
T.R. Indramma D/o T.R. Rudrappa – Respondent
Criminal Petition No.315/2013 c/w Criminal Petition Nos. 6166, 6165, 6164 of 2018
Decided on : 25-02-2019
Chit Funds Act, 1982 - Section 76 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 406, 408, 409, 415, 416, 417, 420, 120B and 34 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482, 161, 162, 156(1), 155(2), 154, 156, 173(2) and 482 - Prize chits and Money Circulations Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978 – Section 3, 4, 5 - Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 - Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1997 - Constitution of India , 1950 - Article 21, 226, 19 and 227 - Registration of Separate FIR’s - Unlawful Detention - Whether multiple FIRs filed against petitioners are liable to be quashed on ground that same is impermissible - Whether there is any prohibition in any further complaint by same complainant can be allowed to be registered as a second FIR - Whether petitioner in Crl.P.No. is entitled to succeed on ground of cognizance taken being erroneous – Held, It would be too hard for this Court to call upon complainants to appear before authority, which has registered first FIR to treat successive complaints as further statements of complainants as they are residing in different parts of State and as such a person who has deposited small amount in fond hope of getting good returns, cannot be expected to expend money more than his deposit towards for travel and incur other expenditure for tendering evidence to drive home guilt of accused namely, by attending Court in a different district though cause of action for said complaint being distinct and separate by treating his complaint as a part of cause of action of first complaint - Thus, in instant complaint it cannot be inferred that there is any commonality in respect of distinct transaction which has given raise to distinct cause of action - As such filing of different FIRs or registration of successive FIRs by different police stations would not be permissible and accordingly, Point No.1 formulated hereinabove is answered in negative namely, FIRs cannot be quashed - There may be different offences and investigation by more than 2 police stations at same time and on account of absence of accused before one police station as a result of accused being engaged in course of investigation by a different police station, there is likelihood of investigating officer before whom petitioner was not able to appear genuinely may take steps to seek for cancellation of bail or such other coercive steps - In such circumstances, fault cannot be laid at doors of accused/petitioners - It would not detain this Court for too long to accept contention of Sri.S.G.Rajendra Reddy, inasmuch as, impugned order is as vague, vagueness could be - A plain reading of order does not disclose for which offence cognizance has been taken - This itself would indicate that there is non application of judicious mind by learned Magistrate and as such, order taking cognizance against present petitioners is liable to be set aside and matter requires to be remitted back to jurisdictional trial Court for fresh consideration - Petition dismissed.
ORDER :
In these matters petitioners, who have been arraigned as accused in Crime Nos.118/2012, 15/2018, 162/2018, 138/2018 and 82/2018, are seeking for quashing of proceedings registered by different police stations for the offences punishable under Section 76 of Chit Funds Act, 1982 and Sections 406, 408, 409, 415, 416, 417, 420, 120B r/w Section 34 of IPC contending interalia that repetitive FIRs cannot be filed against them that too in respect of same offences and only with an intention to cause utmost inconvenience to the petitioners and to coerce them to come to an agreement with complainant, respective FIRs have been filed. It is contended that same is contrary to law laid down by this Court and catena of judgments including the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of matter of T.T. ANTONY vs. STATE OF KERALA reported in (2001) 6 SCC 181. Hence, they have prayed for quashing of the proceedings.
2. It is also contended by way of an alternate contention that investigation can be done atleast by one agency, which would also be in consonance with the Circular bearing No.L&O/MISC/24/2015-16 dated 30.07.2015-Annexure-G whereunder Director General and Inspector General of Police has directed investigating officer not to register more than one FIR pertaining to same transaction and as such it is prayed that as per the Circular dated 30.07.2015 the investigation relating to different FIRs registered by different police stations be investigated by one agency so as to cause least inconvenience not only to petitioners but also to the witnesses who would be tendering their statements.
3. I have heard the arguments of Sri.S.G.Rajendra Reddy and Smt. Shruthi, learned counsel appearing for petitioners and Sri. S.Rachaiah, learned HCGP appearing for respondent-State and Sri.N.Shankarnarayana Bhat, learned counsel appearing for first respondent-complainant in Crl.P.No.315/2013 and second respondent-complainants in other petitions are served and they are unrepresented.
4. It is the contention of Smt. Shruthi, learned counsel appearing for petitioners that registration of separate FIR’s in respect of same/ connected cognizable offence is impermissible in law particularly when first FIR has already been registered in respect of same offences. She would contend that registration of same has resulted in harassment of accused persons and subjecting them to perennial arrests or continuous arrests and thereby resulting in unlawful detention of accused persons under the guise of separate FIRs having been registered against them. She would elaborate her submission by contending that such registration of repetitive and successive FIRs relating to same offence would be an abuse of statutory power and as such this Court in exercise of power vested under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should interfere and quash the proceedings as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter T.T.ANTONY vs. STATE OF KERALA reported in (2001) 6 SCC 181.
5. Elaborating her submission she would contend that registering of successive FIRs amounts to violation of Article 21 of Constitution of India and for the said proposition she relies upon the judgment of Apex Court in the matter of AMITBHAI ANILCHANDRA SHAH vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND ANOTHER reported in (2013) 6 SCC 348. She would further contend that successive information/complaints received by different police stations in respect of same cognizable offence ought to be treated as a statement made by a witness under Section 161 or Section 162 of Cr.P.C. by receiving the same at the earliest of receiving of FIR and no further first information report is required to be registered when the incidents or the commonness being there in the alleged cognizable offences. Hence, she prays for quashing of proceedings registered in subsequent FIRs i.e., present FIRs by contending that first of FIR in Crime No.20/2018 has been registered by Chandra Layout Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 420 Cr.P.C. and
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
