Allahabad High Court
Rakesh Chandra Gupta vs State Of U.P. And Anr. on 4 January, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:906
Court No. - 27
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6317 of 2016
Applicant :- Rakesh Chandra Gupta
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr.
Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Dubey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
1. Heard Sri Anand Dubey, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Anurag Verma, learned A.G.A.-I and perused the record.
2. By means of the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has challenged quashing of the charge-sheet as well as summoning order dated 31.08.2016 arising out of Case Crime No.152 of 2013 under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, 13(1)(c)/13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Panki, District Kanpur pending in the court of Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, District Lucknow.
3. Brief stated, facts of the case are that an FIR No.141 of 2003 was lodged on 04.09.2003 for offence under Section 409 IPC, Police Station Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur against the applicant, who was working as Junior Engineer and was posted as Garden In-charge in Kanpur Development Authority stating that the applicant had embezzled Rs.3 Lakh in the name of expenses incurred for production of manure in Vermi Compost Production Centre.
4. After investigation, allegations could not be established and a Final Report was submitted on 27.12.2003. The Final Report was accepted by the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate-IV, Kanpur Nagar by means of the order dated 16.05.2008.
5. Subsequently, an FIR No.152 of 2013 under Sections 409, 467, 468, 471, 420, 120B IPC 13(1)(c)/13(1)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was lodged on 04.04.2013 against two persons, including the applicant, stating that an open enquiry was conducted in furtherance of a Government Order dated 20.08.2004 in which it was found that the applicant had embezzled Rs.3 Lakh in the name of supply of super worms.
6. After investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted on 07.08.2016 and trial court took cognizance of the offence by means of the order dated 31.08.2016 and the applicant was summoned to face trial.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the earlier FIR was lodged regarding the same alleged incident, which could not be established during investigation and a final report submitted by the investigating officer was accepted by the Court. Opposite parties have not challenged the validity of the order dated 16.05.2008 passed by the court concerned accepting the final report. He has submitted that lodging of second FIR regarding the same incident is not permissible in law. In support of this contention learned counsel for the applicant has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah vs Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr : (2013) 6 SCC 348 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that there can be no second FIR and, conseqeuntly, ther can be no fresh investigation on receipt of every subsequent information in respect of the same cognizable offence or the same occurrence or incident giving rise to one or more cognizable offence.
8. Opposing the application, learned A.G.A.-I has submitted that previous FIR was lodged for commission of the offence under Section 409 IPC whereas the FIR in question has been lodged for offences under Sections 409, 467, 468, 471, 420, 120B IPC 13(1)(c)/13(1)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and, therefore, it is not that the subsequent FIR has been lodged for the same offence regarding which the earlier FIR was lodged.
9. I have considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.
10. First FIR No.141 of 2003 alleged that the applicant was working as Garden Superintendent and he had obtained advance for production of organic manure in Vermicompost Manufacturer Center and instead of getting the work performed, he embezzled the money amounting to Rs.3 Lakh.
11. In the subsequent FIR No.152 of 2013, the allegation is that the applicant prepared forged documents, submitted fake bills, made false entries in stock register and set up one Vijay Dixit and supplied super worms worth Rs.2.5 Lakh. In this manner, the applicant embezzled Rs.3 Lakh.
12. From a bare perusal of both the FIRs, it appears that the allegation in both the FIRs is regarding embezzlement of Rs.3 Lakh committed by the applicant in procuring supplies of super worms/ organic manure for Vermicompost Manufacturer Centre.
13. Although the subsequent FIR mentions some more sections of law, the incident regarding which the FIR has been filed is the same regarding which the previous FIR has been filed.
14. As has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah (supra), no second FIR can be filed for the same cognizable offence or the same occurrence or the incident giving rise to one or more cognizable offences, the subsequent FIR appears to be barred by the aforesaid law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Accordingly, no investigation could have been conducted in furtherance of the subsequent FIR and the charge-sheet, cognizance order passed in furtherance thereof and the proceedings instituted on the basis of charge-sheet stand vitiated.
15. Accordingly, proceedings of the charge-sheet as well as summoning order dated 31.08.2016 arising out of Case Crime No.152 of 2013 under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, 13(1)(c)/13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Panki, District Kanpur pending in the court of Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, District Lucknow are quashed.
16. The application is allowed.
(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)
Order Date :- 4.1.2024
prateek
