HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.7241 OF 2019
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., is filed to quash the proceedings in Crime No.214 of 2019 on the file of Saroornagar Police Station, Saroornagar. The petitioner herein is accused No.1 in the said crime. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 406, 420, 468, 471, 506 read with 120-B IPC.
2. The allegations against the petitioner herein, as per the complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C, are as follows:-
The family of the 2nd respondent-complainant got acquaintance with accused No.2, who styles himself to be a Journalist and closely associated with prominent personalities in Bharatiya Janata Party, a National party. With the said acquaintance, accused No.2 used to visit the house of the 2nd respondent-complainant. In November, 2015, accused No.2 approached the 2nd respondent-complainant and her husband and informed them that he knows the petitioner herein-accused No.1 and the petitioner-accused No.1 is having close contacts with high profile BJP Leaders and he is the shadow of accused No.8, who is the National General Secretary of BJP. Thus, accused No.2 has influenced the complainant and her husband stating that accused No.1 is capable of getting a nominated post in any of the Departments of the Central Government, provided the complainant and her husband spend some amount. Once again, accused No.2, along with accused No.1 accompanied by accused No.3 and another person, approached the 2nd respondent-complainant and her husband and pressurized them to accept their proposal by making false promises that they would be able to procure a nominated membership of Pharmaexil, which functions under the control of Ministry of Commerce and Industries, Government of India.
2
KL,J Crl.P.No.7241 of 2019
3. Accused Nos.1 to 3 have created Mail IDs in the name of the husband of the 2nd respondent-complainant with the active help and assistance of accused No.9. Accused Nos.1 to 3 have informed the 2nd respondent and her husband that the said profile has already been sent to the Commerce and Industries Ministry, so as to get the approval from Smt.Nirmala Sitaraman, the then Central Minister for Commerce and Industries Department, for appointment of the 2nd respondent's husband in the nominated post in Pharmaexil. The petitioner-accused No.1 again approached the 2nd respondent-complainant and her husband and provided a xerox copy of a letter and informed that Smt.Nirmala Sitaraman, being the then Minister looking after the affairs of Commerce and Industries Department, has recommended the name of the husband of the 2nd respondent for appointment as Chairperson of Pharmaexil. While handing over the said xerox copy of the letter, the petitioner- accused No.1 had informed the complainant and her husband that he had received the said letter through Fax from the office of the said Ministry of Commerce and Industries. Thus, the 2nd respondent- complainant and her husband, who innocently believed the version of accused Nos.1 to 3, were induced to part with initial sum of Rs.1.00 crore on 29.12.2015. Subsequently, accused Nos.1 to 3 have collected the remaining amount of Rs.45,00,000/- on 04.01.2016 by deputing accused No.5, a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- on 14.01.2016 by deputing accused No.6, Rs.25,00,000/- on 15.02.2016 by deputing accused No.5 and a sum of Rs.22,00,000/- on 05.04.2016 by deputing accused No.7. In all, the 2nd respondent and her husband have paid Rs.2,17,00,000/- from 29.12.2015 till 05.04.2016 to accused Nos.1 to 3 and 5 to 7. Accused Nos.1 to 3, 5 and accused Nos.5 to 7 and 9, who are close associates of accused No.3, with the active connivance of accused No.8, induced the 2nd respondent-complainant and her husband by showing a xerox copy of the letter purportedly signed by Smt.Nirmala Sitaraman 3 KL,J Crl.P.No.7241 of 2019 and thereby took huge amount of Rs.2,17,00,000/- from the 2nd respondent-complainant and her husband under the pretext that the complainant's husband will be appointed as Chairperson of Pharmaexil.
4. Thereafter, whenever the complainant and her husband approached accused Nos.1 to 3, they used to take various excuses for the delay and made them to believe that the husband of the complainant would get appointment letter for the nominated post of Chairperson of Pharmaexil. Despite lapse of months together, there was absolutely no response from accused Nos.1 to 3 for which the complainant and her husband were forced to run from pillar to post to atleast get back their money. The efforts made by the 2nd respondent and her husband to get back their money became a futile exercise.
5. On coming to know that the complainant and her husband were taking steps to initiate necessary action against the accused, accused Nos.1 to 3 and 8 have deputed accused No.4, who is a politician and leader of BJP, to negotiate and settle the issue with the complainant and her husband. Accused No.4 had promised them that the money will be returned to them and further requested not to propagate the issue, as the same will cause harm to the Central Government as well as the Party. To make the complainant and her husband to believe the version of the accused No.4, accused No.1 had given a written undertaking on 26.07.2016 in which he has specifically confessed his guilt and taking the amount from the complainant's husband and while issuing the cheques in the name of one Mr.M.Raju, accused No.1 had promised that he would return a sum of Rs.2,05,00,000/- to the husband of the complainant on 10.08.2016 and will take back the cheques issued by him. Accused No.1 has also promised that if he fails to pay the amount, he will see that accused No.3 will pay the amount, as accused No.3 had agreed to give an amount of Rs.3.00 crores against the amount taken from the complainant and her husband. By giving the said written 4 KL,J Crl.P.No.7241 of 2019 undertaking, the accused have further induced the complainant and her husband and they have even failed to honour the said undertaking and have cheated the complainant and her husband. Thus, accused No.1 failed to keep up his promise given under the said undertaking dated 26.07.2016. On the other hand, accused No.4 threatened the complainant and her husband that accused No.8 would cause troubles to them.
6. The entire issue has been telecasted in electronic media on 24.08.2016. In the second week of September, 2016, the complainant and her husband received a notice from the office of Assistant Commissioner of Police, Old Kothwal Building, Daryagunj, Delhi, whereby they were directed to appear before the Inspector of Police on 19.09.2016 at 5:00 PM with regard to investigation in FIR.No.159 of 2016 registered for the offences under Sections 420, 468, 471 and Section 120-B of IPC with P.S. Crime Branch, Delhi, for providing documents and to join investigation. Accordingly, the complainant approached the said Police Station, where he was informed that they have received a complaint against the petitioner-accused No.1 and accused No.3 alleging that they have forged the signatures of Smt.Nirmala Sitaraman and fabricated a letter purportedly issued from the office of Ministry of Commerce and Industries, New Delhi and was asked to provide the particulars of the said forged and fabricated document. Accordingly, the complainant and her husband have handed over the said forged and fabricated letter and informed about the criminal acts done by the accused.
7. During the course of investigation, accused Nos.1 and 2 were also taken into custody by the said police. The petitioner-accused No.1 had confessed the illegal and criminal acts committed by him in collusion with other accused. Thus, the petitioner-accused No.1 along with all other accused have cheated the 2nd respondent and her husband by 5 KL,J Crl.P.No.7241 of 2019 forging the signature of the then Central Minister, Smt. Niramala Sitaraman and also induced them to part with an amount of Rs.2,17,00,000/-.
8. The said complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C filed by the 2nd respondent was referred to the police by the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and the police, Saroornagar Police Station, in turn, have registered a case in Crime No.214 of 2019 against the petitioner herein and the other accused for the aforesaid offences.
9. Referring to the contents of the complaint, Sri P. Ponna Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the contents of the complaint lack the ingredients of offences alleged against the petitioner herein. The 2nd respondent and her husband together also filed a Suit against the petitioner herein, A.2 and A.3 and one Mr.M. Raju for recovery of an amount of Rs.3,17,10,000/-. The said suit is pending. The allegations made in the said complaint filed under Section 200 Cr.P.C. are contrary to the allegations made by the 2nd respondent in the said Suit. Learned counsel would further submit that on a complaint lodged by one Mr. G. Bhanu Prakash Reddy, a leader of BJP from Tirupati, P.S.Alipiri, Tirupati Urban have registered a case in Crime No.181 of 2016 for the offences under Sections 420 and 468 of IPC against the petitioner herein and others. The said crime is also pending. Further, on a complaint lodged by one Mr. Sunil Kumar, an employee of Ministry of Commerce and Industries, Department of Commerce, Government of India, P.S.Crime Branch, Delhi have registered a case in Crime No.159 of 2016 for the offences under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC against the petitioner herein and others. The said crime is also pending. In the said crime, the 2nd respondent has appeared before the Delhi Police. By referring to the contents of the above said three FIRs, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that with regard to the very same incident, on the very same allegations, registration of 6 KL,J Crl.P.No.7241 of 2019 Multiple FIRs is not permissible. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of T.T.Antony vs State Of Kerala & Ors1, Surender Kaushik vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others2, Arnab Ranjan Goswami v. Union of India3 and Akbaruddin Owaisi Vs.State of AP4. By referring to the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal5, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that registration of a third crime i.e Crime No.214 of 2014 by P.S. Saroornagar at the instance of the 2nd respondent against the petitioner herein is an abuse of process of law and therefore, it has to be quashed by this Court by invoking its inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. With the said contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner sought to quash the proceedings in Crime No.214 of 2019.
10. On the other hand, Sri Kiran Palakurthi, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent would submit that the 2nd respondent- complainant is the aggrieved party. The allegations in the above said two crimes i.e Crime Ns.181 of 2016 and 159 of 2016 are different. The 2nd respondent has nothing to do with the said crimes. There is a specific allegation against the petitioner herein and other accused that they have induced the 2nd respondent and her husband that they will get an appointment of Chairperson of Pharmaexil to the husband of the 2nd respondent and accordingly, they have furnished a xerox copy of the said order said to have been signed by Smt.Nirmala Sitaraman, the then Central Minster for Commerce and Industries, Government of India. Under the said promise, they have taken huge amount of Rs.2,17,00,000/- from the 2nd respondent and the details of the same are also specifically mentioned in the complaint filed under Section 200 1 2001(6) SCC 181 2 (2013) 5 SCC 148 3 . AIR 2020 SC (Criminal) 948 4 (2013) 6 ALT 101 5 1992 AIR 604 7 KL,J Crl.P.No.7241 of 2019 Cr.P.C. Thus, there are specific allegations against the petitioner herein. The matter is at the investigation stage. Merely because the suit is pending, the proceedings in Crime No.214 of 2019 cannot be quashed and the investigation cannot be interdicted by this Court. He has placed reliance on the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd vs. State of Maharashtra6. He further submits that there is no contradiction in the versions of the 2nd respondent. The petitioner herein, instead of cooperating with the investigation, filed the present petition to quash the proceedings itself. With the said submissions, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent sought to dismiss the present petition.
11. Learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, would submit that the matter is at the investigation stage. Since the punishment for the offences alleged against the petitioner is seven years and below seven years, the Investigating Officer has recorded the statements of five witnesses. There are specific allegations against the petitioner herein. The police have registered the above said crime on the reference made by the learned Magistrate on a complaint filed by the 2nd respondent under Section 200 Cr.P.C. The present case will not fall under the exceptions laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana supra. With the said submission, learned Public Prosecutor sought to dismiss the present petition.
12. The above said facts would reveal that according to the 2nd respondent-complainant, the petitioner-accused No.1 in active connivance with other accused has induced the 2nd respondent and her husband that they will provide a nominated post of Chairperson of Pharmaexil to the husband of the 2nd respondent and under the said promise, they have taken a huge amount of Rs.2,17,00,000/-. The details of payments etc., are specifically mentioned in the complaint. 6 2021 Law Suit (SC) 272 8 KL,J Crl.P.No.7241 of 2019 They have also furnished a xerox copy of appointment letter said to have been signed by Smt.Nirmala Sitaraman, the then Hon'ble Central Minister. On enquiry, the 2nd respondent came to know that the accused have created the said appointment letter by forging the signature of the Central Minister. The said fact was admitted by the petitioner-accused No.1. According to the 2nd respondent, the petitioner/accused No.1 has admitted his guilt and agreed to return the said amount. He has sent accused No.4 to the 2nd respondent-complainant and her husband for negotiations and the petitioner-accused No.1 had given a written undertaking on 26.07.2016 in which he has specifically confessed his guilt and taking the amount from the complainant's husband and while issuing the cheques in the name of one Mr.M.Raju, he had promised that he would return a sum of Rs.2,05,00,000/-. Though in the list of documents appended to the said complaint filed by the 2nd respondent under Section 200 Cr.P.C, it is mentioned about the undertaking dated 26.07.2016 and the MOU entered by the accused dated 16.09.2016, they have not filed copies of the same before this Court. Even learned counsel for the 2nd respondent did not file a copy of the same before this Court. One more undertaking dated 30.05.2016 was also mentioned in the said list said to have been submitted by accused No.1. The same has also not been filed before this Court. The above said Suit filed by the 2nd respondent and her husband against the petitioner herein-accused No.1 and others for recovery of an amount of Rs.3,17,10,000/- is pending. The allegations are almost same. Thus, there are several factual aspects to be investigated into by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation. Whether there is any contradiction in the allegations made by the 2nd respondent against the petitioner herein-accused No.1 and other accused is again a factual aspect to be investigated by the Investigating Officer. With regard to payments said to have been made by the 2nd respondent and her husband to the petitioner-accused No.1 and 9 KL,J Crl.P.No.7241 of 2019 other accused again is a matter to be investigated into by the Investigating Officer. Whether the signature of Smt.Nirmala Sitaraman was forged on the appointment letter said to have been issued by the Central Minister is a matter to be investigated into by the Investigating officer after obtaining FSL Report.
13. Admittedly, the above said two crimes, i.e Crime No.181 of 2016 and Crime No.159 of 2016 are pending against the petitioner herein. Crime No.181 of 2016 was registered on the complaint lodged by a Leader of BJP from Tirupati. Whether he is an aggrieved party or not and the allegations made by him are true or not is again a factual aspect to be investigated by the Investigating Officer. Likewise, Crime No.159 of 2016 registered by the Crime Branch, Delhi Police Station on the complaint lodged by an employee of the Ministry of Commerce and Industries, Government of India and the allegations therein are again matters to be investigated into by the Investigating Officer. A perusal of the complaints in all the above said three crimes reveals that there are different versions. Complainants are different. Therefore, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that on the very same allegations, with regard to the very same issue, registration of multiple FIRs is not permissible is not sustainable.
14. The Hon'ble Apex Court in T.T.Antony's case (1 supra) categorically held that FIR is an important document. It sets the criminal law into motion and marks the commencement of the investigation which ends up with the formation of opinion under Section 169 or Section 170 of Cr.P.C., as the case may be, and forwarding of a police report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. It is quite possible and it happens not infrequently that more informations than one are given to a police officer in charge of a police station in respect of the same incident involving one or more than one cognizable offences. In such a case, he need not enter every one of them in the station house diary and this is 10 KL,J Crl.P.No.7241 of 2019 implied in Section 154 of Cr.P.C. Apart from a vague information by a phone call or a cryptic telegram, the information first entered in the station house diary, kept for this purpose, by a police officer in charge of a police station is the First Information Report-F.I.R. postulated by Section 154 of Cr.P.C. All other informations made orally or in writing after the commencement of the investigation into the cognizable offence disclosed from the facts mentioned in the First Information Report and entered in the station house diary by the police officer or such other cognizable offences as may come to his notice during the investigation, will be statements falling under Section 162 of Cr.P.C. No such information/statement can properly be treated as an F.I.R. and entered in the station house diary again, as it would in effect be a second FIR and the same cannot be in conformity with the scheme of the Cr.P.C
15. The Hon'ble Apex Court in another judgment in Surender Kaushik's case (2 supra) by referring to the principle laid down by it in T.T.Antony's case (1 supra) and other judgments held that it is quite luminous that the lodgment of two FIRs is not permissible in respect of one and the same incident. The concept of sameness has been given a restricted meaning. It does not encompass filing of a counter FIR relating to the same or connected cognizable offence. What is prohibited is any further complaint by the same complainant and others against the same accused subsequent to the registration of the case under the Code of Criminal Procedure, for an investigation in that regard would have already commenced and allowing registration of further complaint would amount to an improvement of the facts mentioned in the original complaint. The Hon'ble Apex Court further held that as is further made clear by the three-Judge Bench in Upkar Singh vs. Ved Prakash and others7, the prohibition does not cover the allegations made by the accused in the first FIR alleging a different version of the same incident. 7 2004(13) SCC 292 11 KL,J Crl.P.No.7241 of 2019 Thus, rival versions in respect of the same incident do take different shapes and in that event, lodgment of two FIRs is permissible. Thus, the Hon'ble Apex Court categorically held that when there are two rival versions in respect of the same episode, they would normally take the shape of two different FIRs and investigation can be carried on under both of them by the same investigating agency. In Akbaruddin Owaisi (supra), registration of multiple FIRs in the same police station for the same occurrence/incident, barred under Section 154(1) of Cr.P.C. and non-application rule against registration of two FIRs for the same occurrence/incident was also dismissed and parameters were laid down.
16. As discussed supra, the versions in Crime No.181 of 2016 and Crime No.159 of 2016 are different. According to the 2nd respondent, she is the aggrieved party and she has paid the above said huge amount of Rs.2,17,00,000/- to the petitioner-accused No.1 and others. Therefore, in view of the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Surender Kaushik's case (2 supra), since the versions are different, the investigation in Crime No.214 of 2019 is permissible. In view of the same, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that there cannot be multiple FIRs with regard to the same incident is not sustainable.
17. According to learned Public Prosecutor, since the punishment for the offences alleged against the petitioner and others is seven years and below seven years, the Investigating Officer has already invoked the procedure laid down under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C and served notice on the petitioner-accused No.1 herein. The investigating Officer has already recorded statements of five witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
18. As discussed supra, there are several factual aspects which are required to be investigated by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kamal 12 KL,J Crl.P.No.7241 of 2019 Shivaji Pokarnekar vs. The State of Maharashtra8 has categorically held that quashing criminal proceedings was called for only in a case where complaint did not disclose any offence, or was frivolous, vexatious, or oppressive. If allegations set out in complaint did not constitute offence of which cognizance had been taken by Magistrate, it was open to High Court to quash same. It was not necessary that, a meticulous analysis of case should be done before trial to find out whether case would end in conviction or acquittal. If it appeared on a reading of complaint and consideration of allegations therein, in light of the statement made on oath that the ingredients of the offence are disclosed, there would be no justification for High Court to interfere. The defences that might be available, or facts/aspects which when established during trial, might lead to acquittal, were not grounds for quashing complaint at threshold. At that stage, only question relevant was whether averments in complaint spell out ingredients of a criminal offence or not. The Court has to consider whether complaint discloses that prima facie, offences that were alleged against Respondents. Correctness or otherwise of said allegations had to be decided only in trial. At initial stage of issuance of process, it was not open to Courts to stifle proceedings by entering into merits of the contentions made on behalf of Accused. Criminal complaints could not be quashed only on ground that, allegations made therein appear to be of a civil nature. If ingredients of offence alleged against Accused were prima facie made out in complaint, criminal proceeding shall not be interdicted.
19. The Hon'ble Apex Court in M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd's case (3 supra) laid down certain conclusions with regard to quashing of FIR by High Courts by invoking its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In 8 . AIR 2019 SC 847 13 KL,J Crl.P.No.7241 of 2019 the said conclusions, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C is very wide but conferment of wide power requires the Court to be more cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the Court. However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid down by this Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur vs. State of Punjab9 and State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal10, has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint. The Court is not required to consider on merits whether the allegations make out a cognizable offence or not and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR.
20. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar's case (5 supra) and M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd's case (3 supra), merely because there is a suit pending, the proceedings in Crime No.214 of 2019 cannot be interdicted. Prima facie, there are specific allegations against the petitioner herein. The role played by the petitioner herein in commission of offence is also specifically mentioned by the 2nd respondent in the complaint filed by her under Section 200 Cr.P.C. In view of the same, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings in Crime No.214 of 2019. The petitioner failed to make out any case to quash the said proceedings before this Court in exercise of its powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
21. However, considering the submissions of the learned Public Prosecutor that since the punishment prescribed for the offences alleged against the petitioner is seven years and below seven years, the Investigating Officer has already invoked the procedure laid down under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C, this Criminal Petition is disposed of directing the 9 AIR 1960 SC 806 10 1992 Supp(1) SCC 335 14 KL,J Crl.P.No.7241 of 2019 Investigating Officer in Crime No.214 of 2019 pending on the file of P.S. Saroornagar to strictly follow the procedure laid down in Section 41-A of Cr.P.C ad also guidelines issued by the Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and another11. The petitioner shall cooperate the Investigating Officer by furnishing the information and documents as sought by him in concluding the investigation.
22. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J Date: 01-06-2021.
JSU/vvr 11 (2014) 8 SCC 273