Back
2013 Supreme(Cal) 113
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Asim Kumar Ray, J.
Central Bureau of Investigation
Versus
Dilip Kumar Lahiri & Other
CRR No. 2592 of 2005 with CRR No. 2593 of 2005
Decided On: 1-3-2013
For the Petitioner: Mr. Himangshu Dey Mr. Mrityunjoy Chatterjee.
For the O.P. No.1: Mr. Sobhendu Sekhar Roy, Mr. Pronojit Roy.
Splitting an FIR and submitting different independent reports under Section 173(2) of the CrPC on the basis of an investigation started in respect of a single FIR is not permissible.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SPLITTING OF FIR AND SUBMISSION OF DIFFERENT INDEPENDENT REPORTS - Whether there can be splitting of FIR and submission of different independent reports under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) on the basis of investigation started in respect of a single FIR? - NO
Fact of the Case:
Two revisional applications were filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) challenging an order of the Special Court refusing to take cognizance of a police report and directing further investigation. The CBI had submitted two separate charge sheets based on a single FIR alleging that certain employees of the National Insurance Company had conspired to cheat the company by passing bogus motor vehicle claims.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that splitting an FIR and submitting different independent reports under Section 173(2) of the CrPC on the basis of an investigation started in respect of a single FIR is not permissible. The court reasoned that accepting two separate charge sheets on the result of the investigation of a particular case would lead to confusion in the trial as the witnesses and documents would be the same.
Issues: 1. Whether there can be splitting of FIR and submission of different independent reports under Section 173(2) of the CrPC on the basis of investigation started in respect of a single FIR? 2. Whether the result of a single investigation can be split, and separate reports in final form under Section 173(2) of the CrPC can be treated as a police report under Section 2(r) of the CrPC? 3. Whether there can be more than one report in final form in respect of an investigation arising out of a single FIR on the basis of the same transaction or occurrence? 4. Whether cognizance can be taken on the basis of split reports as required under Section 190(b) of the CrPC?
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the following principles: 1. The purpose of an FIR is to set the criminal justice system in motion and to provide the basis for further investigation. 2. Section 173(2) of the CrPC contemplates a single report in final form to be submitted by the investigating officer after completion of the investigation. 3. Splitting an FIR and submitting multiple charge sheets based on the same investigation would lead to confusion in the trial and would not be in accordance with the law.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revisional applications filed by the CBI and upheld the order of the Special Court directing further investigation.
Asim Kumar Ray, J.
CRR No. 2592 of 2005 and CRR No. 2593 of 2005 arise out of the same order dated 27-4-2005 passed by the learned Judge, 3rd Special Court, Calcutta. Both the revisional applications are taken up together for disposal by this common judgment.
The aforesaid revisional applicationd are at the instance of Central Bureau of Investigation, petitioner challenging the order dated 27-4-2005 passed in Special Case No. 8 of 2004 and Special Case No. 9 of 2004 both arise out of RCCWA2003A0004 dated 31-1-2003 by learned Judge, 3rd Special Court, Calcutta. The learned Judge has refused to take cognizance on the basis of the police report No. 15 and 16 dated 17-6-2004 and directed the Superintendence of Police, CBI/SAB/Calcutta to cause further investigation by competent officer and submit report in final form afresh by 18-6-2005.
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order these revisional applications have been filed.
It is necessary for convenience to place brief fact of the case. The same is as follows:
The case was started on the basis of a secret information received by CBI/ACB/Calcutta on 31-1-2003 . It was alleged that Shri S.Dutta Gupta, Senior Divisional, Manager, Shri Prabir Banerjee, Assistant Manager , Shri N.K.Kundu, Administrative Officer, Shri D.K.Lahiri, Administrative Officer and Shri D.P.Ganguly, Administrative Officer all of National Insurance Company (in short NIC), Division-IX, Kolkata and some other unknown persons hatched up the criminal conspiracy during the year 1999-2000 to cheat NIC and thereby caused a loss to the tune of Rs. 672852 by passing bogus and fictitious motor vehicles claim. It was alleged that Shri D.K.Lahiri prepared bogus disbursement voucher No. 21564,21884,22123,24288,24078 and 22645 in respect of separate claims and in respect of all the said claims , the genuine policy holders had already submitted their claims and received payment. The accused persons prepared bogus disbursement vouchers and by abusing their official position prepared the signed cheques. The cheques were encashed by fictitious claims. By this fraudulent transactions accused persons defrauded and cheated National Insurance Company to the tune of Rs. 229672. It has been further alleged that 10 other bogus and fictitious claims were also prepared and a sum of Rs. 405780 was defrauded. Thus, National Insurance Company, Division-IX, Kolkata sustained a loss of Rs. 635452/-.
On the basis of the aforesaid allegation RC Case No. CCAA2003A0004 dated 31-1-2003 was started. Charge sheet being 15 of 2004 dated 17-6-2004 against the accused persons ,namely, D.K.Lahiri and Smt. Bulbul Chakraborty was submitted on 30-7-2004 for causing loss of Rs. 1,02,056. Similarly, on the very same day another charge sheet being No. 16 of 2004 arising out of same FIR was submitted against the accused persons , namely, D.K.Lahiri and Ashoke Kumar Mallick for causing a loss of Rs. 497196 to National Insurance Company, Division-IX, Kolkata.
The learned Judge, 3rd Special Court, Calcutta had formulated four points which are as follows:
1) Whether there can be spliting of FIR and submission of different independent reports u/s 173(2) Cr. P.C. on the basis of investigation started in respect of single FIR ?
2) Whether result of single investigation can be splited and separate reports in final form u/s 173(2) Cr. P.C. can be treated as police report u/s 2(r) of Cr. P.C. ?
3) Whether there can be more than one report in final form in respect of investigation arising out of a single FIR on the basis of same transaction or same occurrence ?
4) Whether cognizance can be taken on the basis of splited reports as required u/s 190(b) Cr. P.C.
The points were discussed in the body of the order impugned and the learned Court below after considering the points passed the order directing the further investigation and for submissions of the report in final form afresh.
Mr. Himangshu De, learned senior advocate appearing for t
