Back
2016 Supreme(Pat) 464
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH, J.
Antika Kumari & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Bihar & Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 730 of 2015
Decided On : 18-04-2016
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Mr. Rajesh Kumar
For the EOU : Mr. Vishwanath Pd. Sinha, Ms. Soni Srivastava
For the State of Jharkhand : Mr. Satyawrat Verma
The judgment established the principle that a second FIR for the same offence or incident is not permissible under the CrPC, and the investigating agency should not conduct a fresh investigation based on subsequent information.
Headnote:
Quashing of FIR - Economic Offence - CrPC 154, 156, 157, 169, 170, 173(2), 173(8) - PC Act 13(1)(e) read with 13(2)
Fact of the Case:
The case involved allegations of fraud and cheating by the petitioners in relation to obtaining a tender for Ranchi Airport. The informant alleged that the petitioners took a large sum of money from him under false pretenses and failed to fulfill their promises of repayment and interest.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the FIR filed in the present case was identical to a previous FIR filed in a different jurisdiction, and thus constituted a second FIR. The court held that the second FIR could not be sustained and quashed it, but allowed the state to register a fresh FIR if necessary.
Issues: The main issue was whether the FIR in the present case, being identical to a previous FIR, could be sustained as a valid second FIR.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principles of CrPC sections 154, 156, 157, 169, 170, 173(2), and 173(8) to determine the validity of the second FIR. It held that a fresh investigation for the same cognizable offence based on subsequent information is not permissible.
Final Decision: The court quashed the FIR in the present case but allowed the state to register a fresh FIR if necessary.
The present application has been filed for quashing of the first information report (for short “FIR”) of the Economic Offence P.S. Case No. 6 of 2015 registered on the basis of the written report submitted by one Alok Kumar Singh on the 8th of October, 2014 to the Inspector General of Economic Offence Unit, Bihar, Patna.
2. The informant Alok Kumar Singh claims to be the Managing Director of M/s Rajmani Property Private Limited having its registered office at Ashok Nagar, Kadaru, Ranchi. He has stated in his written report that he met the petitioner no. 1 Antika Kumari and the petitioner no. 2 Shyam Babu Singh at Ranchi in the course of collecting information for obtaining the tender of Ranchi Airport at Ranchi. The petitioner no. 1 introduced herself as one of the Directors of one Antika Construction & Suppliers Private Limited (for short “the Company in question”), and both the petitioners no. 1 and 2 informed him that for obtaining the tender of Ranchi Airport, huge amounts of money and also a lot of clout are required. They told the informant that there is no possibility that he would succeed in obtaining the tender by himself. They also said that since the petitioner no. 2 is in police service and also has good political contacts, he would manage to obtain the tender in the name of the Company in question. However, they revealed that the only problem they were facing was that they did not possess enough money. They required Rs.3 crore as margin money for the said tender which was not available with them. They proposed to the informant that if he provided Rs.1.50 crores to the petitioners, they would give him interest at the rate of 18 % on the aforesaid amount. They assured safe, sure and timely reimbursement of the entire principal amount as well as the promised interest within a three months period. However, they were not ready to issue any negotiable instrument in his favour and informed him that business relationships depends on mutual trust and faith. The informant has further alleged in his written report that the petitioner no. 2, Shyam Babu Singh, persuaded him to deposit the aforesaid amount in the accounts of his wife Antika Kumari (petitioner no. 1) and his son Manish Kumar (petitioner no. 3) who are the Managing Directors of the Company in question.
3. The informant has further stated that being a businessman, he thought that if the entire principal amount was paid by him to the petitioners through RTGS and cheques from his accounts, then that fact would be enough proof of the payment of the said principal amount to the petitioner no. 1 and to the Company in question, by him. He also thought that the words of assurance given by the petitioners no. 1 and 2 for repayment of the said principal amount and the interest thereon seemed genuine and reliable. Hence, he accepted the said proposal of the petitioners no. 1 and 2 and became ready to provide Rs.1.50 crore to them to obtain the said tender in the name of the Company in question, expecting to get a good return on his money which was lying idle. He made payment of the said money in installments between 20.1.2014 and 12.05.2014 from his personal account, accounts of his family members and the account of his Company, Rajmani Property Private Limited, to the accounts of the petitioner no. 1, namely, Antika Kumari, and the Company in question. After receiving the aforesaid amount, the petitioners, especially the petitioners no. 1 and 2, again assured him of payment of good return on the said amount and safe, sure and timely repayment of the principal. He waited till the agreed period of three months for the said payments but when the payment was not made at the end of this time, he made representations before the petitioners for the same. Whenever he met them for payment of agreed interest amount and reimbursement of the principal amount, they assured him that they would make the payment by the next day fixed by them, but they never did so.
4. The informant
