Back
2022 Supreme(P&H) 1040
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Vikas Bahl, J.
Mr.monishankar Hazra & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
State Of Haryana & Ors. – Respondents
CRM-M-6692 of 2022(O&M) and CRM-M-6698 of 2022(O&M)
Decided On : 16-03-2022
Mr. R.S.Rai, Senior Advocate, and Mr. Vinod Ghai, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Kanika Ahuja, Advocate; Mr. Sarthak Sharma, Advocate; Mr. Inder Raj Gill, Advocate; Ms. Kirti Ahuja, Advocate; Mr. Avichal Prasad, Advocate; Ms. Rubinavirmani, Advocate; Mr. Edward Augustine George, Advocate, Ms. Mahima Dogra, Advocate; Mr. Kushagrabeniwal, Advocate, Mr. Siddharth Gupta, Advocate, for the Petitioners in Both the Petitions., for the Appellant; Mr. Munish Sharma, AAG, Haryana. Mr. Sameer Sachdev, Advocate; Mr. Saranshsahbarwal, Advocate, and Mr. Bhanu Kathpalia, Advocate, Mr. Vivek Saini, Additional Advocate, General, for the Respondent.
The court emphasized that successive FIRs regarding the same incident are impermissible and quashed the FIR based on concealment of previous complaints and forum shopping, affirming the requirement of compliance with Section 154 CrPC.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code - Sections 120-B, 406, 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 - Quashing of FIR - Petitioners challenged FIR relating to alleged corrupt practices in tender procurement - Court found respondent had concealed earlier complaints and was engaging in 'forum shopping' - Court concluded that earlier proceedings were not disclosed, and FIRs were filed with mala fide intent - Impugned order quashed based on legal grounds including violation of established judicial procedures. (Paras 31-34, 63-71)
(B) Similar allegations in different jurisdictions - Application of legal principle against multiple FIR registrations for same cause of action established & dismissed. (Paras 43-45)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the case. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments presented by petitioners. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 3. counterarguments from respondent no.2. (Para 15 , 16 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 4. court's findings and legal analysis. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66) |
| 5. conclusion and order of the court. (Para 69 , 70 , 71) |
JUDGMENT
Vikas Bahl, J. - This order will dispose of the two petitions filed under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") to set aside/quash the order dated 15.12.2021 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panchkula, in case bearing no. COMI/63/2021 titled as "Sharad Kothari vs. United Health Group Information Services & Ors.", registered on 31.08.2021 and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, including FIR bearing no.508 dated 23.12.2021 registered under Sections 120-B, 406, 409, 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (hereinafter referred to as "IPC") at Police Station Sector 5, Panchkula.
The first petition, i.e. CRM-M-6692-2022 has been filed by Monishankar Hazra and Sameer Bansal and the second petition, i.e. CRM-M-6698-2022 has been filed by seven petitioners namely Optum Global Solutions (India) Private Limited through its authorised representative Mr.Prashant Sinha, Anurag Khosla, Tim Trujillo, Rajat Bansal, Gayatri Varma, John Santelli and Partha Sarathi Mishra. Since the impugned order in both the cases is the same and the issues involved and questions of law are also common, thus, both the cases are being taken up together and with the consent of all the parties, CRM-M-6692-2022 is taken up as the lead case and facts have been taken from the said petition.
This judgment has been divided into the following sections:-
1. | Background / facts of the case | Paras 2 & 3 | Pg 4-7 |
2. | Arguments on behalf of the petitioners | Paras 4 to 14 | Pg 7-25 |
3. | Arguments on behalf of respondent no.2 | Paras 15 to 25 | Pg 25-32 |
4. | Arguments on behalf of the petitioners in rebuttal to arguments of respondent no.2 | Paras 26 to 28 | Pg 32-34 |
5. | Arguments on behalf of the State | Para 29 | Pg 34-35 |
6. | Arguments on behalf of respondents no.3 and 4 | Para 30 | Pg 35 |
7. | Findings of this Court a) List of grounds on the basis of which the impugned order / FIR and all the subsequent proceedings deserve to be set aside / quashed. b) Grounds 1.1-Concealment of earlier application u/ S 156(3) Cr.P.C. resulting in registration of two FIRs. 1.2- Malafide / Ulterior motive 1.3-Forum shopping and suppression of earlier complaints. . Chronological events c) Ground no.2: Offences as alleged not made out d) Ground no.3: Non-compliance of law laid down in Priyanka Srivastava's case e)Ground no.4: Infirmities/ illegalities in the impugned order f) Ground no.5: Delay in filing present application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. g) Ground no.6: Non-challenge to the tender proceedings by the 4 competitors companies who had also participated in the same. h) Ground no.7: Complaint on the same allegations pending before the Lokayukta Haryana. i) Ground no.8: Lack of locus standi of the complainant to file present application u/S 156(3) Cr.P.C. j) Conclusion k) Relief | Paras 31 to 71 Para 31 Paras 32 to 42 Paras 32 to 42 Paras 32 to 42 Para 33 Paras 43 to 49 Paras 50 to 56 Paras 57 to 62 Para 63 Para 64 Para 65 Para 66 Paras 67 to 70 Para 71 | Pg 35-153 Pg 35-37 Pg 37-71 Pg 37-71 Pg 37-71 Pg 38-50 Pg 71-98 Pg 98-115 Pg 115-133 Pg 134 Pg 134-135 Pg 135-140 Pg 140-143 Pg 143-152 Pg 152-153 |
Background/ facts of the case
2. Respondent no.2 had filed a complaint dated 27.08.2021 under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. (Annexure P-28 page 539) against ten accused persons, including 9 petitioners in both the petitions, collectively. A prayer was made in the said complaint for issuance of directions as envisaged under Section 156 (3)
