FIRs based on different allegations and incidents cannot be clubbed or tried together.

JUDGMENT

Arvind Singh Sangwan, J. - Prayer in this petition is for quashing of order dated 19.03.2018 (Annexure P-7), passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI, Haryana at Panchkula as well as order dated 07.05.2018 (Anneuxre P-9), passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (CBI), Haryana at Panchkula in case FIR No. RC/CHG2008 (A) 0022, under Sections 120-B, 420 and 477 of the IPC at Police Station CBI, ACB, Chandigarh, vide which the application, filed by the petitioner under Sections 322 and 323 of Cr.P.C. has been dismissed.

2. In nutshell, the facts of the case are that petitioner Chandra Shekhar, the then General Manager, BSNL, was caught red handed on 03.06.2004 while demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs. 25,000/-, which was followed by a search conducted in the official residence of the petitioner, where a sum of Rs. 45,03,450/- was recovered apart from other documents.

3. After the chargesheet was presented by the CBI on 22.05.2019, the petitioner filed a petition bearing CRM-M-37039-2014 before this Court seeking quashing of the present FIR, which was dismissed, vide order dated 24.10.2017. The operative part of the order reads as under:

"On giving a careful thought to the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I find no substance in the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner. The first FIR registered against the petitioner relates to demand and acceptance of bribe money. The second FIR relates to possession of assets disproportionate to his known source of income. Both these FIRs were registered in 2004. The cause pertaining to the instant FIR accrued on 31.01.2007 when the application was filed by Santosh Kumar on behalf of LVL Infrastructure Limited staking claim on the cash recovered from the house of petitioner. During inquiry as ordered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, it was found that attempt has been made to help the petitioner by fabricating the account books and audit report. Consequently, the FIR was registered and matter was investigated. The offences in this case pertain to the period much after the period of first FIR and constitute separate and distinct offences and CBI has committed no error of law by registering separate FIR and filing separate charge-sheet. The observation of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah Vs. The Central Bureau of Investigation and another (supra), are not applicable to the facts of the present case. In that case, CBI was inquiring into killing of a person and the Apex Court has observed that alleged killing of that person could be part of conspiracy under which earlier murder had taken place. In the above case, Hon'ble Apex Court has not quashed the second FIR but passed order as follows:-

"53. In the light of the specific stand taken by the CBI before this Court in the earlier proceedings by way of assertion in the form of counter affidavit, status reports, etc. we are of the view that filing of the second FIR and fresh charge sheet is violative of fundamental rights under Article 14, 20 and 21 of the Constitution since the same relate to alleged offence in respect of which an FIR had already been filed and the court has taken cognizance. This Court categorically accepted the CBI's plea that killing of Tulsiram Prajapati is a part of the same series of cognizable offence forming part of the first FIR and in spite of the fact that this Court directed the CBI to "take over" the investigation and did not grant the relief as prayed, namely, registration of fresh FIR, the present action of CBI filing fresh FIR is contrary to various judicial pronouncements which is demonstrated in the earlier part of our judgment.

54. In view of the above discussion and conclusion, the second FIR dated 29.04.2011 being RC No. 3(S)/ 2011/Mumbai filed by the CBI is contrary to the directions issued in judgment and order dated 08.04.2011 by this Court in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 115 of 2009 and accordingly the same is quashed. As a