The charge-sheet filed by the Investigating Officer can be treated as a complaint, and the court declined to decide on the offense under Section 384 of IPC, leaving it to be considered by the Magistrate at the time of framing of charge.

C.V. Bhadang, J.

By this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code, for short), the petitioner is seeking quashing of FIR bearing No.79/2016, registered with Police Station, Anjuna and the consequent charge-sheet filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mapusa, under Sections 384, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 474, 109, 114, 115, 182, 193, 195, 199, 200, 205, 201, 120-B, 511 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (IPC, for short).

2. The principal ground on which the petitioner seeks to quash FIR/charge-sheet is that the second impugned FIR is not competent. It is contended that there were previous complaints lodged by the third respondent, who is the complainant with Sakinaka Police Station, Mumbai on 18/02/2016 and 11/03/2016, on the basis of which FIR No.478/2016 is registered against the accused no.1 Anil Jaisinghani and others. Incidentally, the petitioner happens to be the accused no.9 in the impugned FIR No.79/2016 of Police Station Anjuna.

3. Brief facts, necessary for the disposal of the petition, may be stated thus :

That one Tulika Katare (Accused no.2 in the impugned FIR) filed a complaint with Police Station, Anjuna on 11/02/2016 alleging that the respondent no.3 had sexually assaulted her without her consent in the night intervening between 10th and 11th February, 2016 at Hotel Goan Darbar, Chapora, Goa, after lacing her drink with some stupefying substance. On the basis of the said complaint, an offence under Crime No.17/2016 was registered with Police Station, Anjuna, in which the third respondent was arrested and has since been released on bail. It appears that after the investigation of the complaint lodged by Tulika Katare against the third respondent, the Investigating Officer has filed a final 'B' summary report, which is pending consideration before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mapusa.

4. The impugned FIR is registered on the basis of the complaint of the third respondent, alleging that there is a property dispute between the third respondent and one Anil Jaisinghani (accused no.1 in the impugned FIR) and the said Anil Jaisinghani along with others, including Ms. Tulika Katare and the petitioners had hatched a criminal conspiracy and in furtherance thereof, had cooked up a false story of Tulika Katare being raped in the Hotel Goan Darbar. There are in all 12 accused named in the impugned FIR.

5. The Investigating Officer, during the course of the investigation of the impugned FIR, found that Anil Jaisinghani and others had hatched a conspiracy to falsely implicate the third respondent in an offence of rape, and hence, after completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner and others. As noticed earlier, the only ground on which the FIR/charge-sheet is sought to be quashed, is that there is previous FIR registered concerning the same transaction with Police Station, Sakinaka, Mumbai and as such, the impugned FIR, which is registered later in point of time, is not competent.

6. We have heard Shri Syed, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Dessai, the learned Senior Counsel for the third respondent. We have also heard Shri Amonkar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent nos.1 and 2 and perused record.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner made the following submissions :

(i) That unless the final B summary submitted in respect of the complaint of Tulika Katare is accepted, it is not permissible for the Investigating Officer to register an FIR against the petitioner and others, claiming that the complaint by Tulika Katare was false;

(ii) That the impugned FIR is incompetent in view of the previous FIRs with the Sakinaka police station, Mumbai as they arise out of the same transaction;

(iii) That in view of section 195(1)(a)(i) of the code, the prosecution for the offence under section 182 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC for shor