The court ruled that distinct allegations in a second FIR, even involving some overlap with a prior complaint, do not invalidate the subsequent investigation process, affirming the principle of judicial restraint in quashing criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep N. Bhatt, J.

1. Rule. The present petition is filed seeking for following the main reliefs:

“(A) To admit this application;

(B) To allow this application by issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction in nature of writ by quashing and setting aside the impugned FIR being C.R.No.11195016210589 of 2021 registered with Deesa North Police Station, Dist. Banaskantha, in the interest of justice;

(C) Pending admission, and hearing final disposal of this application, grant stay as to further investigation into the impugned FIR being C.R.No. 11195016210589 of 2021 registered with Deesa North Police Station, Banaskantha, in the interest of justice;”

2. Brief facts as per the case of the petitioner in this petition are as such that an FIR came to be lodged before Deesa North Police station on 07.08.2021 being C.R.No.11195016210483 of 2021 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 406 , 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE . The petitioner came to be arrested in conection with the offence on 09.08.2021 and since then he is behind the bars. The investigation is over and chargesheet is filed. Second FIR came to be filed for the same offence and same subject matter with same issue on 14.10.2021 by the witness of the earlier FIR before same police Station being C.R.No. 11195016210589 of 2021 for the offences punishable 406, 4.1. Mr. Pravin Gondaliya, the learned advocate for the applicant, has submitted that prima facie, the present FIR is nothing but a second FIR identical to the first FIR, filed by Karshanbhai Velaji Chaudhary – private party, who lodged the complaint on 7.8.2021. This complaint is registered under Sections 406 , 420, 465, 467, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 167 and 120-B of the INDIAN PENAL CODE as also under Sections 13 (1)(b) and 13(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. As per the case of the petitioner in this petitioner that there can not be two FIRs for the same offence and therefore, second FIR is violative of Article 14 ,20 and 21 of the Constitution of India. misuse of process of law. Hence, the present petition is preferred.

3. Heard Mr. Pravin Gondaliya, the learned advocate for the applicant, Mr. Dhawan Jayswal, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) for the respondent No.1 – State. 468, and 471 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE . Mr. Gondaliya has asserted that the accused person, namely Sagar Hareshbhai Banawala (the present petitioner), gained the complainant's confidence and prepared bogus challans and documents regarding sales tax (VAT), income tax returns, and income tax records of M/s Lal Petrolium. The same incident is reported to have occurred with Shri Sundheshree Petroleum for the period of 2015-21, as mentioned by a witness in the complaint. Similar incidents are also alleged with other witnesses, Ms. Man Petroleum and Ms. Dharnidhar Petroleum, regarding sales tax and income tax returns, leading to the filing of the complaint against the accused persons.

4.2. Furthermore, Mr. Gondaliya has highlighted that during the investigation of the initial complaint, the police recorded the statement of Bhartiben, daughter of Revabhai Khengarbhai Desai, on 29.9.2021, Assistant Commissioner Sales Tax Department, Unit No.35 at Deesa, Dist. Bansskantha, and provided details about similar incidents involving other individuals in her statement. He has drawn attention to another FIR filed by Bhartiben on 14.10.2021, where the Sections 406 , 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 167, and 120-B of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , read with Sections 13 (1)(b) and 13(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, are invoked. Mr. Gondaliya has argued that despite the addition of sections and accused in the second FIR, the narration of incidents remains the same, making the second FIR based on the same set of facts and circumstances as the first FIR.

4.3. Moreover, he has pointed out that such a second FIR is not maintainable in the eyes of the law, citing judgments from the Hon’ble Apex Court in cases of Am