Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
KULDEEP MATHUR, J.
Rakesh Mehandiratta (Arora) S/o Shri Devi Dutta – Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Misc. (Pet.) No. 7338 of 2022
Decided On : 22-07-2024
CRIMINAL LAW - PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988; INDIAN PENAL CODE - Sections 13(1)(c)(d), 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Sections 467, 468, 471, 409, 120-B of IPC; Section 482 Cr.P.C. - The court discussed the principles regarding the maintainability of multiple FIRs based on the same set of facts, referencing the Supreme Court's rulings in T.T. Anthony and Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah. It emphasized that the registration of a second FIR for the same allegations, after negative findings in previous investigations, constitutes an abuse of process. The court concluded that the impugned FIR was unjustified and quashed it, while allowing for further investigation in earlier FIRs if warranted.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash FIR No. 245/2018, which was lodged against him for alleged corruption while serving as Executive Officer of Nagar Palika, based on a complaint with multiple allegations. The petitioner argued that similar allegations had previously led to multiple FIRs, all resulting in negative reports, and that the new FIR constituted an abuse of process.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations in the impugned FIR were previously investigated and resulted in negative reports. It held that the registration of the new FIR was contrary to established legal principles and constituted an abuse of process, thus warranting its quashing.
Issues: Whether multiple FIRs can be registered for the same set of allegations after negative findings in prior investigations, and whether the new FIR constitutes an abuse of process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the Supreme Court's judgments to establish that a second FIR based on the same facts is impermissible, especially when prior investigations yielded negative results. It underscored the need for a just balance between the rights of the accused and the powers of the police to investigate.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition, quashing FIR No. 245/2018, while permitting the Investigating Agency to seek further investigation in the earlier FIRs if new evidence arises.
ORDER :
1. By way of filing the present Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:
“It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Criminal Misc. Petition may kindly be allowed and the F.I.R. No. 245/2018 registered at Police Station, ACB, Hanumangarh, Central Police Station and further proceedings in pursuant thereof, may kindly be quashed and set-aside.”
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the prosecution, the complainant - Surendra Kumar had filed a written complaint dated 20.10.2014 before Anti Corruption Bureau, Hanumangarh with 33 allegations for the period in which the petitioner was holding the post of Executive Officer, Nagar Palika, Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh. In the written complaint it was stated that the petitioner while holding the post of Executive Officer, Nagar Palika at Pilibanga, with the collusion of the property dealers, issued commercial and residential patta in utter disregard to the applicable laws and thereby caused huge financial losses to the Nagar Palika for his personal gains.
3. Learned counsel submitted that the impugned FIR No. 245/2018 dated 29.08.2018 has been lodged against the present petitioner for the offences under Sections 13(1)(c)(d) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 467, 468, 471, 409 and 120-B of the IPC, specifically for four allegations which were levelled against the petitioner by the complainant in his written complaint dated 20.10.2014. Drawing attention of the Court towards the impugned FIR No. 245/2018 and the averments, made therein, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that for the same set of allegations, different FIR Nos.407/2014, 408/2014, 598/2015, 672/2014 and 661/2014 were lodged against the present petitioner and in each of them, after making a thorough investigation, negative Final Reports were submitted by the concerned Investigating Officers.
4. Learned counsel further submitted that two or more FIRs are not maintainable on the same set of facts & allegations and the petitioner legally cannot be prosecuted twice, particularly when the negative Final Reports submitted by the Investigating Officers have already been accepted by the competent criminal court. Learned counsel vehemently submitted that the impugned FIR was lodged with an ulterior motive, knowing fully well that in earlier FIRs, the Investigating Agency has already submitted negative Final Reports, hence the impugned FIR is nothing but an abuse of process of law at the hands of the complainant, and therefore, the same deserves to quashed and set-aside.
5. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the registration of the second FIR by Anti Corruption Bureau, District Hanumangarh on the basis of the written complaint submitted by the complainant, on same set of facts is illegal and not justified. It was submitted that the fresh investigation by the investigating agency without there being any change in the facts or circumstances is absolutely unwarranted and illegal. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the following judgments:
(i) T.T. Anthony Vs. State of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC 181
(ii) Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah Vs. The Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. (2014) 1 SCC (Cri.) 309
6. Per Contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel of the complainant have opposed the prayed made in the present misc. petition. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner are bereft of any substance; he argued that as far as the investigation against the petitioner in connection with impugned FIR is concerned, the same can be done even after a negative Final Report has been accepted by the competent criminal court in the previous FIR(s). The power to conduct investigation by the Investigating Agency cannot be restricted, looking to the nature of the allegations levelled against the present petitioner,
AI
The registration of multiple FIRs for the same allegations is impermissible and constitutes an abuse of process, particularly when prior investigations have concluded with negative findings.
Second FIR is permissible when second FIR is counter-complaint or presents a rival version of a set of facts, in reference to which earlier FIR already stands registered.
When dispute is essentially inter se between parties, either they are relatives; neighbours and which does not affect society High Court should exercise its inherent power to quash FIR.
The judgment established the principle that a second FIR for the same cause may not be permissible if the incidents could have been investigated in the first FIR, and that the abuse of power by the I....
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 judic....
A second FIR is permissible if it presents new facts or different allegations, necessitating a proper investigation by the police.
The court ruled that civil and criminal proceedings can coexist in cases of fraud, emphasizing the necessity of a valid prosecution sanction.
The power to quash a complaint/FIR under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly and is an exception rather than an ordinary rule.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
