1.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR.

O R D E R

(1) S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION No.1630/2013

Sanjay Harsh & Anr. VS. State of Rajasthan & Anr.

(2) S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION No.1452/2014

Praga Ram. VS. State of Rajasthan & Anr.

(3) S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION No.1453/2014

Rajeev Kashyap. VS. State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Date of Order: 04/7/2016

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

Mr. Manish Shishodia ]

Mr. Mahesh Thanvi

]

Mr. Vikas Balia

], for the petitioners.

Mr. A.S. Rathore, Public Prosecutor for the State.

Mr. Pradeep Shah, for respondent No.2-complainant.

Mr. Jitendra Singh Mertiya, C.I., ACB Barmer, Investigation

Officer present in person.

....

These three miscellaneous petitions have been preferred

by the petitioners herein for assailing the legality and validity

of the FIR No.201/2013 registered by the Anti Corruption

Bureau, Outpost Jaisalmer for the offences under Sections 13

(1)(d) & 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section

120-B IPC.

The FIR has been challenged principally on the ground

that the same is nothing but a second FIR on the same facts.

The FIR under challenge was lodged by the respondent No.2

Bahadur Khan son of Aamad Khan, resident of Gafoor Bhatta,

Jaisalmer. In order to seek quashing of the FIR, the

petitioners have placed on record, copy of another FIR

2.

No.351/2011 registered at the Police Station Jaisalmer for the

offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 34, 217

and 218 IPC at the instance of the respondent No.2 Bahadur

Khan himself.

Sarva Shri Manish Shishodia, Vikas Balia and Mahesh

Thanvi, learned counsel representing the respective accused

petitioners, relied upon the following judgments in support of

their contentions and urged that as the allegations levelled in

the impugned FIR and those levelled in the FIR No.351/2011

are exactly identical, it virtually amounts to registration of a

second FIR on the same facts and such an action is

impressible in law as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court:-

(i) T.T. Antony vs. State of Kerala & Ors., (2001)6 SCC 181;

(ii) Mohan Baitha & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Anr., (2001)4

SCC 350;

(iii) Upkar Singh vs. Ved Prakash & Ors., (2004)13 SCC 292;

(iv) Nirmal singh Kahlon vs. State of Punjab & Ors., (2009)1

SCC 441;

(v) Babubhai vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., (2010)12 SCC 254;

(vi) Anju Chaudhary vs. State of U.P. & Anr., (2013)6 SCC

384;

(vii) Surender Kaushik & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh &

Ors., (2013)5 SCC 148;

(viii) Shiv Shankar Singh vs. State of Bihar & Anr., (2012)1

SCC 130;

(ix) Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah vs. CBI & Anr., (2013)6 SCC

348;

(x) Awadesh Kumar Jha & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar,

(2016)3 SCC 8.

They thus urged that while accepting the miscellaneous

3.

petitions, the impugned FIR should be quashed.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor Shri A.S. Rathore

assisted by Shri Jitendra Singh, the Circle Inspector, ACB and

Shri Pradeep Shah, learned counsel representing the

complainant-respondent, vehemently opposed the arguments

of the petitioners' counsel and urged that the allegations as

set out in the FIR registered by the Anti Corruption Bureau are

singnificantly different from the ones investigated by the

investigating officer of the Police Station Jaisalmer in FIR No.

351/2011. Thus, they urged that the judgments relied upon

by the petitioners' counsel have no application whatsoever

and the impugned FIR is not liable to be interfered at this

stage.

I have considered the arguments advanced by the

learned counsel representing the parties and have gone

through the material available on record.

The earlier FIR No.351/2011 which was registered at the

Police Station Jaisalmer at the instance of the complainant

Bahadur Khan, was based on the allegation that valuable

lands belonging to the Municipality were got fraudulently

allotted in the name of ineligible persons. The accused

arraigned i