Back
2016 Supreme(Raj) 804
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Sandeep Mehta, J.
Sanjay Harsh & Anr. - Petitioners
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Anr. - Respondents
S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition Nos. 1630 of 2013, 1452-1453 of 2014
Decided On : 4-7-2016
For the Petitioner:Mr. Manish Shishodia, Mr. Mahesh Thanvi and Mr. Vikas Balia, Advocates.
For the State : Mr. A.S. Rathore, Public Prosecutor.
For the Respondent No.2 - Complainant:Mr. Pradeep Shah, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Jitendra Singh Mertiya, C.I., A.C.B. Barmer, Investigation Officer present in person.
Normally, no second FIR should be registered when another FIR has already been registered for the same allegations. However, in this case, the allegations in the impugned FIR were significantly different from those investigated in the earlier FIR.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL LAW - PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 - SECTION 13(1)(D) AND 13(2) - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 - SECTION 120-B - SECOND FIR - QUASHING - SAME FACTS - LEGALITY AND VALIDITY - CONSOLIDATION OF FIRS - INVESTIGATION BY ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU - INHERENT POWERS OF THE COURT UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C. - DIRECTIONS TO CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE TO FORWARD FILE TO ACB FOR FURTHER INVESTIGATION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the legality and validity of an FIR registered by the Anti Corruption Bureau, Jaisalmer, alleging that it was a second FIR on the same facts as an earlier FIR registered at the Police Station Jaisalmer. The petitioners relied on several Supreme Court judgments to support their contention that registration of a second FIR on the same facts is impermissible.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations in the impugned FIR were significantly different from those investigated in the earlier FIR. However, the court also found that the final report submitted by the local police in the earlier FIR was not satisfactory and that the reasons given for giving a clean chit to the accused were far from satisfactory.
Issues: 1. Whether the impugned FIR was a second FIR on the same facts as an earlier FIR, and therefore impermissible. 2. Whether the final report submitted by the local police in the earlier FIR was satisfactory.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that while normally a second FIR should not be registered for the same allegations, in this case, the allegations in the impugned FIR were significantly different from those investigated in the earlier FIR. However, the court also held that the final report submitted by the local police in the earlier FIR was not satisfactory and that the reasons given for giving a clean chit to the accused were far from satisfactory. Therefore, the court directed that the earlier FIR be consolidated with the impugned FIR and that further investigation be conducted by the Anti Corruption Bureau.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the miscellaneous petitions by directing the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaisalmer to forward the entire file of the earlier FIR to the Anti Corruption Bureau, Jaisalmer for further investigation. The court also directed that the Anti Corruption Bureau consolidate both the FIRs and conduct further investigation in the matter and file the result thereof in the concerned Court within a period of one year from the date of receiving the copy of the order.
Mr. Sandeep Mehta, J.
These three miscellaneous petitions have been referred by the petitioners herein for assailing the legality and validity of the F.I.R. No. 201/2013 registered by the Anti Corruption Bureau, Outpost Jaisalmer or the offences under Sections 13 (1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120-B I.P.C.
2. The F.I.R. has been challenged principally on the ground that the same is nothing but a second F.I.R. on the same facts. The F.I.R. under challenge was lodged by the respondent No. 2 Bahadur Khan son of Aamad Khan, resident of Gafoor Bhatta, Jaisalmer. In order to seek quashing of the F.I.R., the petitioners have placed on record, copy of another F.I.R. No. 351/2011 registered at the Police Station Jaisalmer for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 34, 217 and 218 I.P.C. at the instance of the respondent No. 2 Bahadur than himself.
3. Sarva Shri Manish Shishodia, Vikas Balia and Mahesh Thanvi, learned Counsel representing the respective accused-petitioners, relied upon the following judgments in support of their contentions and urged that as the allegations levelled in the impugned F.I.R. and those levelled in the F.I.R. No. 351/2011 are exactly identical, it virtually amounts to registration of a second F.I.R. on the same facts and such an action is impressible in law as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court:-
(i) T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala & Ors., (2001) 6 SCC 181;
(ii) Mohan Baitha & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Anr., (2001) 4 SCC 350;
(iii) Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash & Ors., (2004) 13 SCC 292;
(iv) Nirmal Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab & Ors., (2009) 1 SCC 441;
(v) Babubhai v. State of Gujarat & Ors. . (2010) 12 SCC 254;
(vi) Anju Chaudhary v. State of U.P. & Anr., (2013) 6 SCC 384;
(vii) Surender Kaushik & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., (2013) 5 SCC 148;
(viii) Shiv Shankar Singh v. State of Bihar & Anr., (2012) 1 SCC 130;
(ix) Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. CBI & Anr., (2013) 6 SCC 348;
(x) Awadesh Kumar Jha & Ors. v. The State of Bihar, (2016) 3 SCC 8.
4. They thus urged that while accepting the miscellaneous petitions, the impugned F.I.R. should be quashed.
5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor Shri A.S. Rathore assisted by Shri Jitendra Singh, the Circle Inspector, ACB and Shri Pradeep Shah, learned Counsel representing the complainant-respondent, vehemently opposed the arguments of the petitioners' Counsel and urged that the allegations as set out in the F.I.R. registered by the Anti Corruption Bureau are singnificantly different from the ones investigated by the Investigating Officer of the Police Station Jaisalmer in F.I.R. No. 351/2011. Thus, they urged that the judgments relied upon by the petitioners' Counsel have no application whatsoever and the impugned F.I.R. is not liable to be interfered at this stage.
6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel representing the parties and have gone through the material available on record.
7. The earlier F.I.R. No. 351/2011 which was registered at the Police Station Jaisalmer at the instance of the complainant Bahadur Khan, was based on the allegation that valuable lands belonging to the Municipality were got fraudulently allotted in the name of ineligible persons. The accused arraigned in the said F.I.R. with the exception of Narayan Lal and Basanti Mathur are common in both the F.I.Rs. The impugned F.I.R., too contains almost the identical allegations which formed the basis of the F.I.R. No. 351/2011 referred to above. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above referred judgments has, in no unequivocal terms, laid down that normally, no second F.I.R. should be registered when another F.I.R. has already been registered for the same allegations. It would be desirable that the investigation of a fresh F.I.R. for similar allegations should be consolidated with the F.I.R. registered earlier rather than, registering a second report.
8. On going through the material available on record, it is evident tha
