HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2864 / 2017

Ram Kumar Arya Son of Shri Arjun Ram Arya, Aged About 63

Years, Resident of House No.- B-54, Agarsen Nagar, Churu.

----Petitioner

Versus

State of Rajasthan Through Public Prosecutor.

----Respondent

_____________________________________________________

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. D.S. Sodha

For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.S. Panwar, PP

_____________________________________________________

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Order

07/09/2017

1.

The petitioner has preferred this criminal misc. petition

under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for consolidating FIR No. 440/2011,

442/2011, 461/2011 along with FIR No.441/2011 lodged at Anti

Corruption Bureau, Jaipur, Chowki ACB, Churu for the alleged

offence under Section 13 (1)(d), 13(2) P.C. Act, 1988 read with

Sections 420 & 120-B of IPC.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the

judgment of this Court in the case of Bhanwar Lal Vs. Sate of

Rajasthan in S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No.35/2017 decided

on 18.08.2017. The judgment reads as under:

“1.

The petitioner has preferred this criminal writ petition under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the order dated

12.05.2017 passed by Additional Superintendent of Police, Anti

Corruption Bureau, Jaipur whereby he has refused to consolidate FIR

No.84/2012, 85/2012, 86/2012 alongwith FIR No.87/2012 lodged at

Anti Corruption Bureau, Jaipur Chowki, A.C.B. Hanumangarh for the

offences under Sections 13(1)(d), 13 (2) P.C. Act, 1988 read with

Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A, 201 & 120-B of IPC.

(2 of 6)

[CRLMP-2864/2017]

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the present

case is squarely covered by the decision rendered by a coordinate

Bench of this Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.1630/2013;

Sanjay Harsh & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (alongwith two

connected matters) decided on 04.07.2016.

3.

The coordinate Bench of this Court on 04.07.2016 has

passed the following order in Sanjay Harsh (supra):-

“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 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 SC