Back
2018 Supreme(MP) 440
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE
PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA, J.
Taranjeet Singh Hora & Anr. - Petitioners
Vs.
State of M.P. through P.S. Betma, Indore - Respondent
MCRC No. 18921 of 2017, MCRC No. 19005 of 2017, & MCRC No. 19016 of 2017
Decided On : 11-10-2018
For the Petitioners: Shri A. Khare, Shri H. Chhabra
For the Respondent: Ms. Archana Kher, Shri Amit Dubey
Headnote:
FIR - MULTIPLE FIRs - SAME INCIDENT - SECTION 154 CRPC - SECTION 156 CRPC - SECTION 173 CRPC - SECTION 482 CRPC - SECTION 161 CRPC - SECTION 162 CRPC - SECTION 167 CRPC - SECTION 169 CRPC - SECTION 170 CRPC - SECTION 155 CRPC - SECTION 320 CRPC - SECTION 467 IPC - SECTION 468 IPC - SECTION 420 IPC - SECTION 120B IPC - SECTION 34 IPC - SECTION 406 IPC - SECTION 409 IPC - SECTION 471 IPC - SECTION 477A IPC - SECTION 138 NI ACT - ARTICLE 21 CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - ARTICLE 226 CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - ARTICLE 227 CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala - Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. Central Bureau of Investigation - Chirag M. Pathak v. Dollyben Kantilal Patel - Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash - P. Sreekumar v. State of Kerala - State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal - State of Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa - State of Telangana v. Habib Abdullah Jeelani - Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur v. State of Gujarat - State of Tamil Nadu v. S. Martin - Munshiram v. State of Rajasthan - Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel v. State of Gujarat - Mohd. Alamgir v. State of Jharkhand - A. John Vincent v. Govt. of Tamilnadu - Narang v. State (Delhi Admn.) - Ramlal Narang v. State (Delhi Admn.) - C. Muniappan v. State of Tamil Nadu - Babu Bhai v. State of Gujarat - Anju Chaudhary v. State of U.P. - Mohan Baitha v. State of Bihar - Rita Nag v. State of West Bengal - Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali @ Deepak - Nirmal Singh Kahlon - Kari Choudhary v. Sita Devi - Mitbhai Anil Chandra Shah - Surender Kaushik - State of West Bengal - Mohan Baitha - Rita Nag - Vinay Tyagi - Nirmal Singh Kahlon - Kari Choudhary - Mitbhai Anil Chandra Shah - Surender Kaushik - State of West Bengal - Mohan Baitha - Rita Nag - Vinay Tyagi - Nirmal Singh Kahlon - Kari Choudhary - Mitbhai Anil Chandra Shah - Surender Kaushik
Fact of the Case:
Three FIRs were registered against the petitioners for the same transaction within a short interval. The petitioners filed MCRCs for quashing the FIRs. The petitioners contended that only one FIR ought to have been registered and the subsequent complaints should have been added in the first FIR. They also submitted that no offence on merit is made out against them. The State opposed the prayer, submitting that the FIRs relate to different projects and incidents, and that the defence of the petitioners cannot be looked into at this stage. The objector referred to various documents and submitted that the agreements relied upon by the petitioners are prima facie fabricated.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the subsequent FIRs for different offences committed in the same transaction or offence arising as a consequence of prior offence is not permissible but the second complaint in regard to same incident filed as a counter complaint is permitted under the Cr.P.C. and the second FIR for the same nature of offence against same accused person lodged by a different person or containing the different allegations is maintainable. The court also held that the power under Section 482 for quashing the criminal proceedings should be exercised ex debito justitiae to prevent abuse of process of court but it should not be exercised to stifle legitimate prosecution and High Court should not assume the role of the trial Court and embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability of the evidence and sustainability of the prosecution on a reasonable appreciation of such evidence.
Issues: 1. Whether multiple FIRs can be registered for the same incident? 2. Whether the subsequent FIRs for different offences committed in the same transaction or offence arising as a consequence of prior offence is permissible? 3. Whether the second complaint in regard to same incident filed as a counter complaint is permitted under the Cr.P.C.? 4. Whether the second FIR for the same nature of offence against same accused person lodged by a different person or containing the different allegations is maintainable? 5. Whether the power under Section 482 for quashing the criminal proceedings should be exercised ex debito justitiae to prevent abuse of process of court? 6. Whether the High Court should assume the role of the trial Court and embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability of the evidence and sustainability of the prosecution on a reasonable appreciation of such evidence?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The subsequent FIRs for different offences committed in the same transaction or offence arising as a consequence of prior offence is not permissible. 2. The second complaint in regard to same incident filed as a counter complaint is permitted under the Cr.P.C. 3. The second FIR for the same nature of offence against same accused person lodged by a different person or containing the different allegations is maintainable. 4. The power under Section 482 for quashing the criminal proceedings should be exercised ex debito justitiae to prevent abuse of process of court. 5. The High Court should not assume the role of the trial Court and embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability of the evidence and sustainability of the prosecution on a reasonable appreciation of such evidence.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the MCRCs.
1. This order will govern the disposal of MCRC Nos. 18921/17, 19005/17 & 19016/17 since it is submitted by counsel for the parties that all these MCRCs involve the same issue on the identical fact situation.
2. These MCRCs have been filed by the petitioners Taranjeet Singh Hora and Harmans Singh Hora for quashing the FIRs registered against them. In M.Cr.C. No. 18921/2017 the prayer is for quashing of FIR No.449 dated 5.11.2016, in M.Cr.C. No.19005/17 the prayer is for quashing of FIR No.448 and in M.Cr.C. No.19016/17 the prayer is for quashing of FIR No.447. All these FIRs have been registered on the same date alleging commission of offence by the petitioners under Section 420, 467, 468, 120B and 34 of the IPC.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the three FIRs relate to the same transaction and they are registered in the same police station within a short interval, therefore, only one FIR ought to have been registered and the subsequent complaints should have been added in the first FIR. He further submits that no offence on merit is made out against the petitioners who are the directors of TDS Infra Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd. and partners of Bhaiji Developers and being owners of the land, they had entered into the agreement dated 9.1.2010 and 31.3.2010 with the Phoenix Infra Estate International Limited for developing the residential colony and selling the plots to the prospective buyers and the said agreement contains the clause that every agreement with the prospective buyers will be signed by the petitioner’s Company Phoenix Infra Estate and the prospective buyer, therefore, if Phoenix Infra has taken any amount from the prospective purchaser without executing tripartite agreement having the signature of the petitioners, then the petitioners cannot be roped in the alleged offence. He further submits that the dispute is of civil nature and, therefore, FIR is required to be quashed.
4. Learned counsel for the State opposing the prayer submits that since the FIRs relate to different projects and incidents, therefore, they have been separately registered and that the defence of the petitioners cannot be looked into at this stage and the investigation is in progress and sufficient material has been collected.
5. Learned counsel for the objector has also referred to various documents and has submitted that the agreement dated 9.1.2010 and 31.3.2010 on which the petitioners are relying upon are prima facie fabricated documents and that in the MOU dated 13.9.2012 entered into between TDS Infra and Phoenix Infra relating to Natural Valley Colony, there was no clause relating to the tripartite agreement. He submits that different rates have been mentioned on different agreement between two companies and that the sales have been made to different parties for consideration less than what has been mentioned in the MOU between TDS Infra and Phoenix Infra which itself reveals that the agreement between TDS and Phoenix have been fabricated.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. The petitioners are praying for quashing of the FIR broadly on the following grounds:-
i. That, for the same incident three FIRs should not have been registered, therefore, the subsequent two complaints should be investigated with the first FIR without registering separate second and third FIR.
ii. That, on the basis of the allegation and the material available, no offence is made out.
iii. That, the dispute is of civil nature, therefore, the FIR should be quashed.
8. So far as the first ground relating to registering the 3 FIRs is concerned, the record reflects that all the three FIRs have been registered at Police Station Betma. The FIR No.447 was registered on 5.11.2016 at 20.25 P.M., FIR No.448 on the same day at 21.10 P.M. and FIR No.449 also on the same day at 22.05’O Clock. All the three FIRs contain allegation relating to the alleged offence in respect of the colonies Vidya Vihar, Sai Bagh a
