Allahabad High Court
Madan Pal vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 30 May, 2022
Bench: Ashwani Kumar Mishra, Rajnish Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 44
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 5535 of 2022
Petitioner :- Madan Pal
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Nand Lal Pandey,Suyash Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J.
The First Information Report in Case Crime No.0164 of 2022 under Section 409 I.P.C., Police Station- Deoband, District- Saharanpur is challenged in the present writ petition on the ground that this is the second F.I.R. in respect of same offence /transaction for which a previous F.I.R. in Case Crime No.853 of 2020 has already been lodged.
Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon a judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Babu Bhai Vs. State of Gujarat and Others; (2010) 12 SCC 254 in order to submit that two F.I.Rs. in respect of same transaction or incident which are part of same transaction can always be investigated in the first F.I.R. and the lodgement of second F.I.R. would not be permissible. For coming to such opinion the Supreme Court has taken note of the earlier judgments on the issue including the judgment in the case of T.T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala; (2001) 6 SCC 181.
Petition is opposed by learned A.G.A.
The learned counsel or the petitioner places reliance upon paragraph 20 and 21 of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Babu Bhai Vs. State of Gujarat and Others (Supra) which is reproduced as under:-
"20. Thus, in view of the above, the law on the subject emerges to the effect that an FIR under Section 154 Cr.P.C. is a very important document. It is the first information of a cognizable offence recorded by the Officer In-Charge of the Police Station. It sets the machinery of criminal law in motion and marks the commencement of the investigation which ends with the formation of an opinion under Section 169 or 170 Cr.P.C., as the case may be, and forwarding of a police report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. Thus, it is quite possible that more than one piece of information be given to the Police Officer In- charge of the Police Station in respect of the same incident involving one or more than one cognizable offences. In such a case, he need not enter each piece of information in the Diary. All other information given orally or in writing after the commencement of the investigation into the facts mentioned in the First Information Report will be statements falling under Section 162 Cr.P.C.
21. In such a case the court has to examine the facts and circumstances giving rise to both the FIRs and the test of sameness is to be applied to find out whether both the FIRs relate to the same incident in respect of the same occurrence or are in regard to the incidents which are two or more parts of the same transaction. If the answer is affirmative, the second FIR is liable to be quashed. However, in case, the contrary is proved, where the version in the second FIR is different and they are in respect of the two different incidents/crimes, the second FIR is permissible. In case in respect of the same incident the accused in the first FIR comes forward with a different version or counter claim, investigation on both the FIRs has to be conducted."
In order to examine the applicability of the aforesaid judgement we have examined the facts of the present case and we find that the earlier F.I.R. in Case Crime No.853 of 2020 was lodged by one Vipin Kumar, who has stated that although his grand father died on 29.12.2013 and had already cleared the loan account yet the secretary of the society alongwith its clerk has shown that a loan has been issued to the person, already dead in the year 2013, in the year 2015 and later on the loan was shown in the name of the informant himself. It is alleged that similar kind of illegality has been committed in respect to various other account holders. The investigation pursuant to First Information Report in Case Crime No.853 of 2020 has already concluded and a charge sheet has been filed in the matter which has been placed before us by way of a supplementary affidavit. The charge sheet has been forwarded to the Court on 27.01.2022.
The subsequent F.I.R., which is challenged in the present writ petition i.e. Case Crime No.164 of 2022, has been lodged by the District Cooperative Bank through its official after facts have been enquired into at the level of the bank stating that fraudulent transactions have been made in respect of 132 account holders. It is the second F.I.R. which is challenged in the present petition on the aforesaid grounds.
We find that the earlier F.I.R. is at the instance of an individual person in respect of alleged fraud committed by the guilty person in respect of his account only while the subsequent F.I.R. is by the bank itself in respect of 132 transactions, one of which, apparently, is of Vipin Kumar, who has lodged the earlier F.I.R. We do not find that the transactions in both the F.I.Rs. constitute a single offence. It is also not a case in which the subsequent F.I.R is covered by the previous F.I.R. or in respect of the same incident. The second F.I.R. would require investigation in the matter relating to the alleged fraudulent 131 separate and distinct transactions.
We, therefore, do not find any merit in the petitioner's contention that second F.I.R. is in respect of same offence or same transaction. The second F.I.R. would require separate investigation in respect of other cases and therefore, no interference in the writ petition is called for in the present petition which, accordingly, fails and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 30.5.2022
Haseen U.
