A second FIR is permissible if it involves distinct offences or new facts, as established in T. T. Antony v. State, maintaining legal integrity in criminal investigations.

JUDGMENT : 

CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.

1. The present writ petition has been instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioners seeking quashing of the F.I.R. dated 14.07.2024 registered as F.I.R. bearing No. 0230 of 2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. , Police Station Link Road, District Ghaziabad. The petitioners have further prayed for stay of their arrest in connection with the above said F.I.R. during the pendency of the proceeding before this Court.

Brief Facts Of The Case:-

2. The above said F.I.R. has been lodged by the complainant Sri Rishabh Agnihotri, gravamen of the allegations made in the F.I.R. is that the accused persons namely Yogesh Rana @ Yogi, Ved Budh Raja, Sahil Kalra, Devashish Kotnala and Praul Budhraja were allegedly running an organized group or syndicate engaged in cheating and forgery through on-line business channels. It is alleged that the said accused persons, acting in concert, induced the complainant’s brother Shubham Agnihotri to invest a sum of Rs.7,50,000/- in their business venture by making false representations and deceitful promises. The transactions is stated to have taken place in the year 2019 under the guise of a business project relating to travel packages and health products being operated under the name and style of ‘QNet’.

3. It is further alleged in the F.I.R. that after registration of an earlier case vide F.I.R. bearing No. 38 of 2021 at the same police station on the complaint of Shubham Agnihotri, the present accused persons, in order to shield themselves from prosecution in that case, fabricated and forged documents including a ‘Declaration’ and ‘Distributor Application Form’ purportedly in the names of Rishabh Agnihotri, Smt. Shobha Agnihotri and Shubham Agnihotri. These forged documents were allegedly affixed with counterfeit signatures and a fake notarial seal purporting to be that of Sri Virendra Singh, Advocate and Notary Public. The said forged documents were then submitted during the investigation of the earlier case with the intent to mislead the investigating agency and to secure relief by way of false exculpatory material.

4. Upon coming to know of such forgery, legal notices dated 17.08.2023 and 30.09.2023 were issued to the said Notary. In his written reply, it is stated that the Notary categorically denied having attested or signed any of the said documents, stating that the signatures and seals appearing thereon were forged and fabricated. Thereafter, the informant filed an application under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter “CrPC”) before the Court concerned, seeking a direction for registration of an FIR. Acting upon the said application, the Court directed the concerned police station to register the case, in compliance whereof the present FIR was registered.

5. Hence, the instant writ petition has been filed.

Submissions:-

6. Sri Mohit Kumar Shukla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the impugned FIR is a second FIR on identical facts and allegations, lodged with malafide intent after an inordinate delay of more than five years from the original transaction. It is contended that the earlier FIR No. 38/2021, lodged by Shubham Agnihotri at the same police station, had already been investigated, and no offence was found against them.

7. It is their case that Shubham Agnihotri, who was known to petitioner no. 1, Smt. Parul Budhraja, since the year 2014 when both met at Noida, voluntarily invested in the business project of ‘QNet’