IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that a common charge-sheet can be filed for distinct FIRs if the cases are interrelated and serve the interests of justice.

JUDGMENT :

Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.

By means of present C482 petition, petitioner seeks to quash the order dated 22.01.2024 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Dehradun in Criminal Case No.01 of 2024 “CBI vs. Sudhir Kumar Windlass & Ors.” and the common charge sheet dated 28.12.2024 filed by the respondent-CBI in the said case.

2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused would submit the present petition has been filed with limited prayer to challenge the clubbing of two distinct FIRS in a single charge-sheet by the respondent-CBI.

3. He would submit that admittedly in the instant case two FIRs were filed being FIR No.13 of 2022 dated 09.01.2022 (RC00720023S0002) and FIR No.31 of 2022 dated 25.01.2022 (RC0072023S0004); that, a bare reading of two FIRs would show that while first FIR i.e. RC No.002 relates to an alleged incident of impersonation in execution of sale deed dated 18.05.2010, the second FIR i.e. RC No.004 pertains to another sale deed dated 09.06.2021; that, the petitioner is arrayed as Accused No.13 in this second FIR RC004 and has nothing to do with RC002, however, respondent-CBI has filed a common charge-sheet in two distinct FIRs despite the fact that the alleged offences are distinct by virtue of different set of accused persons and the incidents of commission of offence are also different.

4. To buttress his submissions, learned Senior Counsel would refer the case of “T.T. Antony vs. State of Kerala (2001) 6 SCC 181” and would submit that the law propounded in this judgment prohibits culminating the investigations of two different FIRs in a single charge sheet.

5. Learned Senior counsel would further place reliance upon a judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in re “State of Karnataka vs. Greenbuds Agro Form Ltd. (2021) SCC Online Kar 12475” wherein the Division Bench of said Court held that filing a common charge-sheet for the various crime registered in different Police Stations is impermissible.

6. Learned Senior Counsel would further place reliance on the judgment in “State of U.P. vs. Singhara Singh, 1963 SCC Online SC 23” and would submit that if a statute has conferred a power to do an act and has laid down the method in which that power has to be exercised, it necessarily prohibits the doing of the act in any other manner than that which has been prescribed.

7. He would also refer “J. Jayalalithaa vs. State of Karnataka (2014) 2 SCC 401” which says that where a statute requires to do a certain thing in a certain way the thing must be done in that way and not contrary to it at all. Other methods or mode of performance are impliedly and necessarily forbidden.

8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent-CBI would submit that the original crime/FIR No.13/2022, P.S. Rajpur Dehradun was registered on 09.01.2022 u/s 120-B r/w 420, 467, 468, 471 and 506 IPC on the basis of written complaint of Sanjay Singh against the accused persons Sudhir Kumar Windlass and Ravi Dayal alleging that Sudhir Kumar Windlass in criminal conspiracy with his employee Ravi Dayal got a false sale deed dated 18.05.2010 registered in favour of Ravi Dayal at the Sub Registrar Office, Dehradun pertaining to their land khasra no.222/1 Min (New khasra no. 413 Ä] 434 Ä] 436 [k½ at Village Mauja Johari, Dehradun wherein they did not sell the said land. The parties and the witnesses in the sale deed were either employees of Sudhir Windlass or their family members. Further, Ajay Singh, brother of the complainant who was shown as a seller in the sale deed had already passed away. Subsequently, the said sale deed was got cancelled by the accused persons from the Civil Court, Dehradun.

9. Learned counsel for CBI would further submit that another FIR No.31/2022 was registered for the same offences by the same complainant i.e. Sanjay Singh with allegations that, as mentioned in the first FIR, that accused Sudhir Kumar Windlass entered into a criminal conspiracy with other co-accused persons including the pre