Separate FIRs can be registered for qualitatively different offences arising from the same transaction without violating legal principles against double jeopardy.

JUDGMENT :

ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.

1. The present petition is filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India, in order to challenge FIR No. I-172 of 2018 registered against the petitioner with Topkhana Police Station, Ahmedngar on 04.04.2018 for the offences punishable under Section 420, 467, 468 and 471 red with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Respondent No.3 is the informant. He was working as Deputy Regional Transport Officer, Ahmedngar at the relevant time.

2. The contention of the petitioner is that with respect to the same transaction, earlier another First Information Report was registered against him for the offences punishable under Sections 406,420,467,468,471,120-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code on 04.03.2018 with MIDC Police Station, Ahmednagar vide FIR No. I-91 of 2018. He states that apart from him, Anurag Malhotra, Govardhan Motilal Bihani, Abhishek Govardhan Bihani, Sushil Ostawal and Ajay Rasal are also added as accused in the First Information Report dated 04.03.2018 registered with M.I.D,C. Police Station, Ahmednagar.

3. The sole contention raised by the petitioner while assailing the impugned First Information Report is that, law does not permit registration of second First Information Report with respect to one offence. Perusal of all the grounds in the petition will indicate that this is the sole ground of challenge. In ground No.8 a contention is raised that contents of the First Information Report are vague, false and baseless and do not constitute any offence. This is a general ground which was also not pressed during the course of hearing. Thus, the sole issue that arises for consideration is whether the impugned First Information Report could have been registered against the petitioner in view of earlier First Information Report.

4. Shri. Dilip Mansuklal Gandhi has lodged Firs Information Report vide Crime No. I-91 of 2018, on 04.03.2018 against the petitioner and five individuals named above, for the offences punishable under Sections 406,420,467,468,471,120-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegations in the First Information Report lodged by Shri. Dilip Gandhi are that on 12.01.2015, he had purchased a Ford Endeavor car from Salasar Wheels Pvt. Ltd MIDC Ahmednagar, he has stated that he had been to the showroom of Salasar Wheels Pvt. Ltd on 24.12.2014 for selecting a vehicle, he had selected the Ford ENDEAVOR car, he alleges that the persons arrayed as accused in the First Information Report had represented to him that the year of manufacture of the car was 2015 and it was latest model of Ford ENDEAVOR car and he has further stated that since he had problems with respect to performance of the vehicle, he had sent the vehicle for servicing to another dealer of Ford Motors and then it was reveled that the year of manufacture of the car purchased by him was 2012 and not 2015 as represented to him. Based on this, the aforesaid FIR bearing No. I-91 of 2018 came to beregistered on 04.03.2018.

5. The impugned First Information Report is lodged by the Deputy Regional Transport Officer Ahmednagar on 04.04.2018. The allegations in the First Information Report are that the petitioner had mentioned the date of manufacture of the car in Form No. 21 as 10.01.2015 at the time of registration of the vehicle. According to him, inquiry with the manufacturer reveals that the car was initially sold by the manufacturer to M/s. Sequel Motors Private Limited and not to Salasar Wheels Pvt. Ltd. He further states that the year of manufacture as informed by the manufacturer is 2012 and not 2015. The allegation is that by making a false representation, incorrect entries have been recorded in the record of Regional Transport Office (hereinafter referred to as “RTO” for brevity) with respect of the said car. In the subsequent FIR which is impugned in the present petition, the petitioner is the only person added as an accused.

6. The contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner is that