A second FIR cannot be registered for the same incident; investigations must be consolidated under the first FIR to prevent duplicity.

Order :

(MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J.)

Instant misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No. 497/2021 registered at Police Station Pratap Nagar, District Udaipur for offence under Sections 166, 196, 219, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC.

2. Brief facts of the case are that owing to dispute between the petitioner and the respondent no.2 regarding the business transaction and affairs of partnership deed dated 26.09.2011, respondent No.2 had made a complaint before the Judicial magistrate (City North) No.1, Udaipur on 09.07.2018. The said complaint was forwarded to the Police Station, Dhanmandi, Udaipur and FIR No. 73/2018 was registered for offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC against the petitioner and other persons. Against the said FIR the petitioner had preferred Misc. Petition before this Court being S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 2858/2018 in which the co-ordinate Bench of this Court had passed an interim order in favour of the petitioner to the effect that no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner.

3. During pendency of investigation in FIR No. 73/2018 and S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 2858/2018, the respondent no.2 made another complaint against the petitioner which was forwarded to the SHO, Police Station Pratap Nagar, Udaipur under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C and FIR No. 497/2021 was lodged against the petitioner.

4. Counsel for the petitioner argued that with regard to the alleged partnership deed dated 26.09.2011, civil litigation is pending before the Civil Court and having failed to get any injunction, the respondent no.2 has been filing criminal complaints against the petitioner and other persons, prior to lodging of FIR No. 497/2021. It is argued that the allegations in the FIR No. 497/2021 and FIR No. 73/2018 are same, therefore, the FIR No. 497/2021 is nothing but a second FIR which is barred by law. He placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of T.T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala reported in 2001(6) SCC 181 and Amit Anil Chand Sahu Vs. CBI reported in 2013(6) SCC 348. The petitioner has placed reliance upon the aforesaid judgments in support of his contention that the present FIR is nothing but a second FIR and therefore the same should be quashed.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the respondent no.2 vehemently argued that offences as alleged by the complainant are prima facie made out against the petitioner, therefore, at this stage, the FIR is not liable to be quashed. However, counsel for the respondent no.2 is not in a position to dispute that the allegations in FIR No. 497/2021 of P.S. Pratap Nagar, District Udaipur and FIR No. 73/2018 of P.S. Dhanmandi, District Udaipur are related to same partnership deed.

6. I have considered the rival arguments and carefully gone through the FIR and material on record.

7. From the perusal of the FIRs and material on record, it is apparent that the allegations against the petitioner and other accused persons are to the effect that they prepared a forged and fabricated partnership deed in the firm Adinath Developers. Thus, the incident in both the First Information Reports are in connection of same transaction. There can be no straightjacket formula for quashing or clubbing the FIR and Courts are required to examine the facts of each case. The Court is required to see the circumstances of a given case indicating proximity of time, unity or proximity of case, continuity of action, commonality of purpose of the crime to ascertain if more than one FIR can be allowed to stand. In the opinion of this Court, there is no propriety in conducting investigation two cases separately by different investigating officers.

8. In the case of T.T. Antony vs. State of Kerala and others Reported in (2001) 6 SCC 181, the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as under:

“The scheme of the Cr.P.C. is that an officer in charge of a Police Station has to commence investigation as provided in Sectio