Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
New Look Retails Pvt Ltd., Mumbai 2 Othrs vs Cbcid, Hyd 3 Othrs on 9 February, 2024
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION Nos.9672 and 9664 of 2014
COMMON ORDER :
As the issue involved in both the Writ Petitions is one
and the same, they are being taken up for hearing as well as
disposed of by way of this Common Order.
2. Heard Sri S. Nirajan Reddy, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners and Smt. Y.L. Siva Kalpana
Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for CID appearing for the
respondents.
3. Since the facts in both the writ petitions are similar
and identical, therefore WP No.9672 of 2014 is taken as lead
case, and the facts therein hereinafter will be referred to for
convenience.
4. The 1st petitioner is a company incorporated under
the Indian Companies Act, 1956 as Newlook Multitrade
Private Limited on 14.2.2008. the 1st petitioner owns and
operates a chain of retail stores under the name and style "N
Mart Retails", the 2nd petitioner herein is the first ever chain
of retail stores to be operated on a network plan established
after obtaining all the necessary licenses/approvals including
VAT, Labour, Weights and Measures etc. N Mart Retails has
established and is successfully running more than 275 "N
Mart" retail stores across India. While the matter stood thus,
an NGO Corporate Frauds Watch, lodged a complaint against
the 2nd petitioner and the directors/officials of the 1st
petitioner in P.S Pattabhipuram, Guntur Urban vide FIR
No.440/2011 dated 07.11.2011 for purported violations of
various provisions of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation
Scheme (Banning) Act 1978. The Police Kandukuru arrested
the 3rd petitioner on 30.04.2013 and produced before the
District and Sessions Judge, Ongole in FIR No.154 of 2012.
As on the day of arrest of the 3rd petitioner 9 cases were
registered against the 3rd petitioner, the police shown the
remand of the 3rd petitioner only in FIR No.154 of 2012
contrary to the provisions of Cr.P.C.
While so, upon the representation of the petitioner that
all the cases are similar and may be entrusted to one agency
for investigation the offense registered vide FIR No.583
of2012 of Machavaram Police station Vijayawada and FIR
No.440 of 2011 of Pattabhipuram Police station, Guntur were
transferred by the Government of A.P to Range Office, CB-
CID Vijayawada-2nd respondent for investigation. Aggrieved
by the action of the Government in transferring only 2 cases
to the Range Office, CB-CID Vijayawada though cases were
registered before 10 police stations the petitioners No.1 and 2
approached this Court by way of filing writ petitions vide
W.P.nos.18379, 24028 and 28809 of 2013 and this court
granted interim directions in the above writ petitions not to
arrest the petitioners vide orders dated 11.10.2013.
Thereafter, the 3rd petitioner was released on bail on
27.09.2013 in all offences except the crimes registered in FIR
No.81 of 2013 on the file of Police Narasaraopet Guntur
District and FIR No.104 of 2013 on the file of Police III Town
Adhoni, Kurnool District as the petitioners did not apply for
grant of bail.
Since the 3rd petitioner and the personnel/executives of
the 1st and 2nd petitioners are being arrested and released on
bail all of them have been in remand for more than 150 days,
that in view of the illegal action of transferring the FIRs
registered against the petitioners to different Regional Offices
to CBCID to different Ranges of 1st respondent spread in the
entire state would result in violation of the fundamental
rights of the 3rd petitioner and the personnel/executives of
the petitioners No.1 and 2 exposing them to the threat of
arrest. It is further stated that once the cases have been
transferred to CBCID notwithstanding the different offices
being run by the agency, the entire State of A.P. has been
notified as one jurisdiction for the operation of CBCID. Once
cases in which the petitioners have been arrested where
charge sheets have been filed and the fact that in some other
cases charge sheets have yet to be filed would not make any
difference as it is the same agency that has entrusted the
responsibility of continuing the investigation. Hence, the
present writ petitions.
5. This Court vide order dated 03.04.2014, while
issuing Notice before admission in both the writ petitions,
granted stay of arrest for a period of ten weeks and the same
was extended from time to time
6. The counter affidavits are filed in both the matters,
for convenience, the averments in counter in W.P.No.9672 of
2014 are stated as under:
7. The 4th respondent has filed counter affidavit and
denied all the allegations made in the petition. It is stated
that case in Cr.No.440/2011 of Pattabhipuram PS is
investigated by R.O, CIID, Vijayawada vide orders in
C.No.2647/C-13/ CID/2011, dated 02.05.2013. It is not
true that the complainant in Cr.No.440/2011 of
Pattabhipuram P.S. is reported by one Ch.Divakar Babu of
NGO, Corporate Fraud watch and in Cr.No.154/2012 of
Kandukuru town P.S. complains by one M.V.Syamsundar of
NGO, Corporate Fraud watch, the society is the same, but the
complainant's are different in the same organization. It is
stated that though the CID is the single independent
investigating agency, depending upon the jurisdiction of the
case, on it's occurrence, different cases were registered for
each transaction. Each mall of the petitioner's company
started at different places constitutes different crimes.
Therefore as per law, each transaction would give rise to
different single transaction and the investigating agency
would be entitled to investigate the matter as prescribed
under the provisions of Cr.P.C. It is stated that transferring
in FIR No.104 of 2013 of Adoni III Town Police Station of
Kurnool District and in FIR No.368 of 2012 of Gajuwaka
police station of Visakhapatnam to Regional Office's where
these cases entrusted are within the part of A.P. State Crime
Investigation Department. In furtherance of the procedure
difficulties, it is also to note that if several complaints are
treated as one in one crime number, the investigation may
not conclude expeditiously and it would result in miscarriage
of justice. Hence, prayed to dismiss the writ petition and to
vacate the interim orders passed in both the writ petitions.
8. Reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioners to
the counter affidavit filed by the respondents and denied the
contents made in the counter affidavits. The petitioners while
reiterating the contents made in the petition stated that the
entrustment of investigation of CID was made to remove all
practical difficulties and for conducting of a comprehensive
investigation regarding to the business model of the petitioner
company whether violating the provisions of the Prize Chits
and Money Circulation ((Banning) Act and AP Protection of
Depositors of Financial Establishment act. The conducting of
investigation by one agency would save time, manpower and
also avoid the conflicting investigation reports if made by
different regional offices/investigating officers. Even though
the different regional offices are within the part of A.P. State
Crime Investigation Department, the entrustment of the cases
to different regional offices is contrary to the order made in
W.P.No.18379 of 2013 & batch recording the proceedings of
the 2nd respondent while Memo, dated 12.12.2013. On
account of transfer of cases to three different regional offices
within the same police station this would result in three (3)
FIRs in respect of which investigation would be conducted,
which is contrary to the purposes of transfer order of the 2nd
respondent by a single agency. Once the cases have been
transferred to CBCID, notwithstanding the different offices
being run by the agency, the entire State of AP has been
notified as one jurisdiction for the operation of CBCID. Once
cases in which the petitioners have been arrested where
charge sheets have been filed and the fact that in some other
cases charge sheets have yet to be filed would not make any
difference as it is the same agency that has entrusted the
responsibility of continuing the investigation. It is further
stated that the process of the present investigation in regard
to different regional offices of CB CID and investigation
officers would be eventually culminating into diversified final
reports independent to each other causing severe prejudice to
the petitioners. The same would also result in serious
prejudice to the petitioners and also lead to multiplicity of
litigation further causing considerable delay and also may
result in conflicting judgments.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
even though the different regional offices are within the part
of A.P. State Crime Investigation Department, the
entrustment of the cases to different regional offices is
contrary to the order made in W.P.No.18379 of 2013 & batch
recording the proceedings of the 2nd respondent while Memo,
dated 12.12.2013. On account of transfer of cases to three
different regional offices within the same police station this
would result in three (3) FIRs in respect of which
investigation would be conducted, which is contrary to the
purposes of transfer order of the 2nd respondent by a single
agency. He further submits that since the 3rd petitioner and
the personnel/executives of the petitioners No.1 and 2 are
being arrested and released on bail, all of them have been in
remand for more than 150 days. He submits that in view of
the illegal action of transferring the FIRs registered against
the petitioners to different Regional Offices of CBCID to
different Ranges of 1st respondent spread in the entire state
would result in violation of the fundamental rights of the 3rd
petitioner and the personnel/executives of petitioners No.1
and 2 exposing them to the threat of arrest. He further
submits that once cases in which the petitioners have been
arrested where charge sheets have been filed and the fact
that in some other cases charge sheets have yet to be filed
would not make any difference as it is the same agency that
has entrusted the responsibility of continuing the
investigation. He further submits that the investigating
agency followed the common order made by this Court in
W.P.No.18379 of 2013 & batch dated 13.12.2013. The
process of the present investigation with regard to the
different regional offices of CB CID and investigation officers
would be eventually culminating into diversified final reports
independent to each other causing severe prejudice to the
petitioners. The same would also result in serious prejudice
to the petitioners and also lead to multiplicity of litigation
further causing considerable delay and also may result in
conflicting judgments.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon
the decisions of High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in (i)
Devagupthapu Hara Venkata Surya Satyanarayana Murthy
versus State of Andhra Pradesh rep by its Principal
Secretary and others1, (ii) Akbaruddin Owaisi vs. The
Government of Andhra Pradesh and Ors.2
11. However, the facts of the above cases are not
applicable to the present cases.
12. As registration of two complaints relating to the
very same incident/event in two different police stations
(except in cases where the Rule referred to hereinabove,
against registration of two FIRs for the same incident/offence,
will not apply), would result in parallel investigations being
caused there into, it is necessary to briefly note the powers of
a police officer in causing investigation pursuant to
information having been received of the commission of a
cognizable offence. Section 41(1) Cr.P.C. empowers any police
2022 SCC OnLine AP 2402
2013(2) ALD (Crl.), 855 (AP)
officer, without an order from a Magistrate and without a
warrant, to arrest any person against whom a reasonable
complaint has been made, or credible information has been
received, or a reasonable suspicion exists that he had
committed a cognizable offence. While Section 41(1)(b)
circumscribes the satisfaction to be arrived at by the police
officer before making the arrest it is evident that, subject to
the limitation in Section 41(1)(b), the power to arrest an
accused is conferred on in every police officer investigating a
cognizable offence.
13. Ordinarily the Court will not interfere with the
investigation of a crime or with the arrest of an accused in a
cognizable offence. Arrest is a part of the process of
investigation intended to secure several purposes. The
accused may have to be questioned in detail regarding
various facets of motive, preparation, commission and
aftermath of the crime and the connection of other persons, if
any, in the crime. There may be circumstances in which the
accused may provide information leading to discovery of
material facts. It may be necessary to curtail his freedom in
order to enable the investigation to proceed without
hindrance and to protect witnesses and persons connected
with the victim of the crime, to prevent his disappearance,
and to maintain law and order in the locality. For these or
other reasons, arrest may become an inevitable part of the
process of investigation. (Parvinderjit Singh v. State). The
word 'arrest', is derived from the French word 'Arreter'
meaning "to stop or stay" and signifies a restraint of the
person. The word 'arrest', when used in its ordinary and
natural sense, means the apprehension or restraint or the
deprivation of one's personal liberty. The question whether
the person is under arrest or not, depends not on the legality
of the arrest, but on whether he has been deprived of his
personal liberty to go where he pleases. (Directorate of
Enforcement v. Deepak Mahajan). At the stage of
investigation and initial arrest the rule of audi alteram
partem has no application and the accused has no right of
notice or hearing before his arrest, if any, in a cognizable
case. (Ajeet Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh; Union of India. v.
W.N. Chadha91). Likewise the investigating officer is given
the power, under Section 41-A Cr.P.C, to require before
himself the attendance of any person appearing to be
acquainted with the circumstances of the case. He has also
the authority to examine such a person orally and to reduce
his statement into writing in the manner provided in Section
162. (H.N. Rishbud9).
14. Multiple investigations by multiple police stations
could well result in an accused, who can eventually be tried
and punished for the said incident only once, being subjected
to repeated arrests by different investigating officers, and
being called upon to appear before different police officers
attached to different police stations, in connection with the
investigation of the same offence. While the power to arrest
an accused is conferred on the investigating officer
under Section 41 Cr.P.C, construing the provisions of
the Cr.P.C. as enabling different investigating officers
attached to different police stations to, one after the other,
arrest the same person for the same incident/occurrence
would not be a fair or a just procedure. The petitioner's
fundamental rights, under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India, would be violated as he would not only face the threat
of imminent and numerous arrests by different investigating
agencies for the same incident/occurrence, but his liberty
would also be restricted on his being required to appear
before different investigating agencies conducting parallel
investigation into the same incident.
15. On perusing the entire material available on record
this Court observed that since the malls are independently
established in different places, victims are approaching the
concerned jurisdictional police station under Section 154
Cr.P.C and thus independent cases were registered as per
law. It is further observed that, though the CID is the single
independent investigating agency depending upon the
jurisdiction of the case, on its occurrence, different cases
were registered for each transaction. Each mall of the
petitioner's company started at different places constitutes
different crimes. Therefore, as per law, each transaction
would give rise to different single transaction and the
investigating agency would be entitled to investigate the
matter as prescribed under the provisions of Cr.P.C.
16. The multifarious complaints of similar nature
cropped up across the State. The complaints were registered
as crimes. Each of the complaint is from a particular place in
the State and as a separate set of facts and witnesses relating
to the said complaint are only referable to only that complaint
alone. It is true that the complaints of similar nature of
particular crime committed by a corporate body or an
individual can be registered and the subsequent complaints
be recorded as statements in the said crime. However, the
practical difficult for the prosecution during investigation and
the Court during trial would be to the extent of the confusion
that would be created by each of the witnesses. In fact, there
may be a possibility of some of such witnesses being one over
by the accused may turned hostile that may vitiate the entire
criminal case. So, in view of above procedure difficulties, if
several complaints are treated as one in one crime number,
the investigation may not conclude expeditiously and it would
result in miscarriage of justice.
17. In the present case, it is observed that, during
pendency of the writ petitions, charge sheets were already
filed and that the petitioners preferred transfer of petitions
for want of combined trial. But nowhere it is stated by the
petitioners in the affidavits that single investigation is going
on. The apprehension of the petitioners is that while
conducting investigation there are some irregularities. If at all
any irregularities are there, they have to challenge the final
report but not by way of consideration in these writ petitions.
18. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court do
not accept the reasons mentioned by the petitioners at this
stage. Finding no merit in the instant writ petitions, devoid
of merits and the same are liable to be dismissed.
19. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are dismissed.
However, if at all any irregularities are there, liberty is
granted to the petitioners to challenge the final report before
appropriate authority, in accordance with law. There shall be
no order as to costs.
20. It is made clear that the interim orders granted by
this Court are hereby vacated.
21. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any
pending, shall stand closed.
______________________________
DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J.
Date : 09-02-2024
Gvl
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION Nos.9672 and 9664 of 2014
Date : 09.02.2024
Gvl
