CRIMINAL - INHERENT JURISDICTION - MAHATAMA GANDHI NATIONAL RURAL EMPLOYMENT GUARANTEE ACT, 2005 - FIR - QUASHING - SECOND FIR - INVESTIGATION - POLICE INVESTIGATION - ARREST - SECTION 41 AND 41A CR.P.C. - FAIR AND IMPARTIAL INVESTIGATION - SPEEDY TRIAL - FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT - COMPLAINANT/VICTIM - PROSECUTION - STAKEHOLDERS - FINAL REPORT - CHARGE-SHEET - EVIDENCE - MATERIAL - COOPERATION WITH INVESTIGATING AGENCY - POLICE OFFICERS - DEPARTMENTAL ACTION - CONTEMPT OF COURT - HIGH COURT - TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION - DIRECTIONS TO INVESTIGATING AGENCY - DISPOSAL OF PETITIONS.

Fact of the Case:

Accused petitioners and complainant filed petitions invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking redressal of their afflictions with choicest reliefs. While accused petitioners craved for quashing of FIRs and further proceedings, the complainant sought a direction against the investigating agency to conduct fair, impartial and expeditious investigation into the FIRs.

Finding of the Court:

1. None of the impugned FIRs are disclosing commission of a cognizable offence by the petitioners and therefore allowing investigation in all these matters would result in abuse of the process of the Court. 2. For identical allegations second FIR is per se illegal, oppressive and unwarranted, which is not permissible. 3. Whole endeavour of the complainant is to harass and intimidate the petitioners, which cannot be countenanced at the cost of jeopardizing legitimate development works undertaken under the Act. 4. FIRs are not prima facie disclosing commission of cognizable offence by the accused persons. 5. Complainant has lodged FIR No.354 of 2014 with identical allegations and it is under investigation. 6. Investigation on such FIRs with FIR No. 354 of 2014 in respect of various offences under the Indian Penal Code is advisable/desirable for securing ends of justice. 7. Police officer is not absolved of its obligation to record its satisfaction that arrest of the accused person is necessary for one or more purposes envisaged by sub-clause (a) to (e) of Clause (1) of Section 41 Cr.P.C. and adherence of Section 41A Cr.P.C. 8. Speedy trial is a recognized fundamental right and such right also embraces police investigation proceedings in it.

Issues: 1. Whether the impugned FIRs are disclosing commission of a cognizable offence by the accused persons? 2. Whether the complainant has lodged FIR No.354 of 2014 with identical allegations and it is under investigation? 3. Whether investigation on such FIRs with FIR No. 354 of 2014 in respect of various offences under the Indian Penal Code is advisable/desirable for securing ends of justice? 4. Whether the police officer is absolved of its obligation to record its satisfaction that arrest of the accused person is necessary for one or more purposes envisaged by sub-clause (a) to (e) of Clause (1) of Section 41 Cr.P.C. and adherence of Section 41A Cr.P.C.? 5. Whether speedy trial is a recognized fundamental right and such right also embraces police investigation proceedings in it?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. In exercise of inherent jurisdiction FIR is to be quashed very sparingly and with circumspection and only in rarest of rare cases when no offences spelt therein. 2. While considering the question of quashing FIR, on a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., pre-judging the prosecution case by examining its weakness and contradictions is not permissible. 3. Where allegations in FIR do not, prima facie, disclose commission of a criminal offence, FIR would be quashed. 4. If the necessary factual foundation is laid in the criminal complaint, merely on the ground that a few ingredients have not been stated in detail, the proceedings should not be quashed. 5. Quashing of the complaint is warranted only where the complaint is so bereft of even the basic facts which are absolutely necessary for making out the alleged offence. 6. The High Courts should not exercise their inherent powers to repress a legitimate prosecution. 7. The complaint is not required to verbatim reproduce the legal ingredients of the alleged offence. 8. It is for the Commissioner of Police or the chief constable, as the case may be, to decide in any particular case whether enquiries should be pursued, or whether an arrest should be made or a prosecution brought. 9. If gravamen of the charges in the two FIRs – the first and the second – is in substance and truth the same, registering the second FIR and making fresh investigation and forwarding report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. will be irregular and the Court cannot take cognizance of the same. 10. There can be no second FIR in respect of the same offence/event because whenever any further information is received by the investigating agency, it is always in furtherance of the first FIR. 11. There is no bar to entertain a second complaint on same facts under exceptional circumstances. 12. Police officers are not to automatically arrest when a case Under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code is registered but to satisfy themselves about the necessity for arrest under the parameters laid down above flowing from Section 41, Code of Criminal Procedure. 13. All police officers be provided with a check list containing specified sub-clauses Under Section 41(1)(b)(ii). 14. The police officer shall forward the check list duly filed and furnish the reasons and materials which necessitated the arrest, while forwarding/producing the accused before the Magistrate for further detention. 15. The Magistrate while authorizing detention of the accused shall peruse the report furnished by the police officer in terms aforesaid and only after recording its satisfaction, the Magistrate will authorise detention. 16. The decision not to arrest an accused, be forwarded to the Magistrate within two weeks from the date of the institution of the case with a copy to the Magistrate which may be extended by the Superintendent of police of the district for the reasons to be recorded in writing. 17. Notice of appearance in terms of Section 41A of Code of Criminal Procedure be served on the accused within two weeks from the date of institution of the case, which may be extended by the Superintendent of Police of the District for the reasons to be recorded in writing. 18. Failure to comply with the directions aforesaid shall apart from rendering the police officers concerned liable for departmental action, they shall also be liable to be punished for contempt of court to be instituted before High Court having territorial jurisdiction. 19. Authorising detention without recording reasons as aforesaid by the judicial Magistrate concerned shall be liable for departmental action by the appropriate High Court. 20. Speedy trial is a recognized fundamental right and such right also embraces police investigation proceedings in it.

Final Decision: 1. Prayer for annulment of impugned FIRs on behalf accused-petitioners is declined. 2. Investigating agency is ordained to examine all the impugned FIRs objectively and if it is found that any of the impugned FIRs is founded on identical narration of events and facts as well as works undertaken by the accused persons, which are subject matter of FIR No.354 of 2014, then same may be forwarded to ACB, CPS, Jaipur for being clubbed with the said FIR for investigation without any delay. 3. Investigating agency is directed to make fair, impartial and dispassionate investigation with promptitude in relation to the remaining impugned FIRs. 4. Investigating agency is also expected to ensure compliance of 41 and 41A Cr.P.C. during investigation and interrogation of accused-petitioners, if occasion arises. 5. Considering the pious aims and objects of the Act, the investigating agency is expected to make thorough investigation into the FIRs for facilitating submission of Final Report in the matter, or charge-sheet, as the case may be. 6. Investigating agency, while proceeding with the investigation into the impugned FIRs, is required to submit conclusions solely on the basis of evidence and material collected during investigation, uninfluenced by any observation made by this Court. 7. Accused-petitioners and the complainant are expected in all fairness to cooperate with the investigating agency.