Back
2014 Supreme(Cal) 836
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Joymalya Bagchi, J.
Salil Bose & Anr. - Petitioners
Versus
State of West Bengal & Anr. - Opposite Parties
C.R.R. 1647 of 2014 With C.R.A.N. 3589 of 2014
Decided On : 22-12-2014
For the Petitioners: Goutam Chakraborty
For the Opposite Parties : Subir Banerjee
When multiple FIRs are registered for the same incident, the court may direct that the cases be amalgamated and treated as a single case. The investigation in such cases should be conducted effectively and expeditiously to ensure a just and timely resolution.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL LAW - Amalgamation of Cases - Multiple FIRs for Same Incident - Subsequent FIR Treated as Statement under Section 162 Cr.P.C. - Petitioners Arrayed as Accused in Amalgamated Case - Statements and Materials from Both Cases to be Considered - Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Application Treated as First Information Report - Investigation to be Conducted Effectively and Expeditiously - Order in Writ Petition Irrelevant to Legality of Criminal Case.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners challenged a criminal proceeding initiated against them based on a subsequent complaint alleging cheating and misappropriation of funds. The initial complaint under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. was sent for investigation but no FIR was registered. A subsequent complaint was filed with the police station, leading to the registration of the impugned FIR.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the initial application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. constituted the first intimation of the incident and should be treated as the First Information Report (FIR). However, substantial investigation had progressed based on the subsequent complaint, and it would be incorrect to discard the collected materials.
Issues: 1. Whether the subsequent complaint could be treated as a valid FIR when an earlier complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. existed. 2. Whether the investigation in both cases should be amalgamated since they related to the same incident.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court relied on the principle that the first intimation of an incident to the police authorities constitutes the FIR. In this case, the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was the first intimation and should be treated as the FIR, even though no immediate action was taken. 2. The court found that both FIRs related to the same incident and directed that the cases be amalgamated. The application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was to be treated as the FIR, and the subsequent complaint would be considered a subsequent statement of the complainant under Section 162 Cr.P.C.
Final Decision: The court directed that the investigation in both cases be amalgamated and treated as a single case. The petitioners were to be arrayed as accused persons in the amalgamated case, and the statements and materials collected in both investigations would be considered part of the amalgamated case. The court also quashed the notices issued under Section 41A of the Cr.P.C. in one of the cases and directed the investigating agency to proceed with the investigation effectively and expeditiously.
Joymalya Bagchi, J.
Proceeding in Khatra Police Station case no.24/14 dated 05.04.2014 corresponding G.R. No.264/2014 under sections 420, 406, 506 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code has been assailed on the premise that the said proceeding was initiated on the basis of subsequent information lodged by the defacto-complainant, opposite party no.2 at the police station herein over the self-same incident.
2. It appears that on 09.10.2013 an application under section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. was taken out by the opposite party no.2 against one Tipu Sultan and six others alleging that the said persons being the Director and other office bearers of one M/s Golden Life Agro Indian Limited had induced the opposite party no.2 and various persons to invest in their company on false promise that the invested money would be returned to them with handsome profits. It is further alleged that after the investment the company closed down its business and did not make refund at all. In fact, cheques issued with regard to refund were dishonoured. In spite of direction given by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khatra, Bankura, by order dated 09.10.2013 no First Information Report was registered. Under such circumstances, opposite party no.2 lodged another written complaint with the Inspector In-Charge, Khatra Police Station alleging that he deposited a sum of Rs. 8,59,600/- on false promise that the same shall be repaid with handsome interest. Initial instalment of Rs. 2,93,750/- was sought to be repaid to the petitioner vide cheque dated 25.04.2013 drawn on the State Bank of India. The said cheque was returned unpaid by the banker on presentation. It has been further alleged that the petitioner no.1 is the owner of the said company and had cheated a number of persons in similar manner. The petitioner no.2 is a relation of petitioner no.1 and acted in collusion with the latter in the alleged crime. Upon receipt of the said written complaint, impugned First Information Report being Khatra Police Station case No.24/2014 corresponding to GR No.264/2014 dated 05.04.2014 under sections 406/420/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered for investigation.
3. Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the letter of complaint dated 05.04.2014 is a subsequent intimation of the alleged offence in as much as the opposite party no.2 had already lodged an earlier application under section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. which had been sent for investigation to the police vide order dated 09.10.2013. He further submitted that there was no whisper as to the role of the petitioners in the earlier application under section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. The petitioners have been falsely implicated in the instant case with ulterior motive. There is nothing on record that petitioner no.1 is the owner of the company or that the petitioner no.2 had played any role with regard to the alleged crime. Mr. Chakraborty further submitted that the depositors have approached before the Writ Court in W.P. No.16338 of 2014 and an order was passed therein protecting their interest. He accordingly prayed for quashing of the impugned criminal case. In support of his submissions, he relied on decisions reported in AIR 2001 SC 2637 (T.T. Antony v. State of Keral and others) and (2010) 12 SCC 254 (Babubhai v. State of Gujarat and others).
4. Mr. Banerjee, learned Additional Public Prosecutor produced a report of I/C Khatra P.S. disclosing that intimation had been sent to the opposite party no.2 herein. However, nobody appears on behalf of the opposite party no.2. The said report is kept on record.
5. Mr. Banerjee referring to the said report submitted that in terms of direction given by the learned Magistrate on 09.10.2013 another criminal case being Khatra PS Case No.92/14 under sections 420/406/120B I.PC. has been registered for investigation against one Tipu Sultan and six others. He further submitted that notice under section 4
