Delhi High Court
Atma Ram Aggarwal vs State Of Nct Of Delhi And Anr on 19 July, 2024
Author: Sudhir Kumar Jain
Bench: Sudhir Kumar Jain
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Reserved on: 15thMay, 2024
Decided on: 19thJuly, 2024
+ CRL.M.C. 4643/2019 & CRL.M.A. 35844/2019
AZAD SINGH
..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ravinder Kumar Yadav,
Ms. Arti Anupriya,
Kartikey, Paras Juneja,
Advocates
V
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANOTHER
..... Respondents
Through: Insp. Abhishek Mishra, P.S.
EOWs
Mr. M. N. Dudeja, Mr.
Aditya Mishra, Mr. Ansul
Davar, Advocates for R-
2/complainant
+ CRL.M.C. 4644/2019 & CRL.M.A. 35847/2019
ATMA RAM AGGARWAL
..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ravinder Kumar Yadav,
Ms. Arti Anupriya,
Kartikey, Paras Juneja,
Advocates
V
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANOTHER
..... Respondents
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:23.07.2024 CRL.M.C. 4643/2019and connected matters Page 1
16:38:07
Through: Insp. Abhishek Mishra, P.S.
EOW
Mr. M. N. Dudeja, Mr.
Aditya Mishra, Mr. Ansul
Davar, Advocates for R-
2/complainant
+ CRL.M.C. 4651/2019 & CRL.M.A. 35862/2019
GURCHARAN SINGH & ANOTHER ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr.Ravinder Kumar Yadav,
Ms.ArtiAnupriya, Kartikey,
Paras Juneja, Advocates
V
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANOTHER
..... Respondents
Through: Insp. Abhishek Mishra, P.S.
EOW
Mr. M. N. Dudeja, Mr.
Aditya Mishra, Mr. Ansul
Davar, Advocates for R-
2/complainant
+ CRL.M.C. 4652/2019 & CRL.M.A. 35866/2019
ARVIND AGGARWAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ravinder Kumar Yadav,
Ms. Arti Anupriya,
Mr. Kartikey, Mr. Paras
Juneja, Advocates
V
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANOTHER
..... Respondents
Through: Insp. Abhishek Mishra, P.S.
EOW
Mr. M. N. Dudeja,
Mr. Aditya Mishra,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:23.07.2024 CRL.M.C. 4643/2019and connected matters Page 2
16:38:07
Mr. Ansul Davar, Advocates
for R-2/complainant
CORAM
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN
JUDGMENT
1. The present petitions bearing no. Crl. M.C 4643/2019 titled as
Azad Singh V State of NCT of Delhi and another, Crl. M.C.
4644/2019 titled as Atma Ram Aggarwal V State of NCT of Delhi
and another, Crl. M.C. 4651/2019 titled as Gurcharan Singh &
another V State of NCT of Delhi and another and Crl. M. C.
4652/2019 titled as Arvind Aggarwal V State of NCT of Delhi and
another are filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the code") read with Article
227 of the Constitution for setting aside the order dated 25.03.2019
passed by the court of Sh. Gorakh Nath Pandey, ASJ-FTC, West
District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
2. The factual background of the case is that FIR bearing no.
443/2002 (hereinafter referred to as "the second FIR") dated
29.05.2002 was got registered that on the complaint of Saraswati
Mishra (hereinafter referred to as "the respondent no. 2/the
complainant") against Azad Singh (petitioner in Crl. M.C.
Signing Date:23.07.2024 CRL.M.C. 4643/2019and connected matters Page 3
4643/2019 and hereinafter referred to as "Azad Singh"), Atma Ram
Aggarwal (petitioner in Crl.M.C. 4644/2019 and hereinafter referred
to as "Atma Ram Aggarwal"), Gurcharan Singh and Prem Shankar
Aggarwal (petitioners in Crl.M.C. 4651/2019 and hereinafter referred
to as "Gurcharan Singh" and "Prem Shankar Aggarwal"),
Arvind Aggarwal (petitioner in Crl. M.C. 4652/2019 and hereinafter
referred to as "Arvind Aggarwal") and other co-accused persons
namely Suresh Kumar Mangla @ Gupta, Prem Shankar Aggarwal,
Rajindra, Ranbir Singh, Raj Pal, Hari Ram, M.S. Vats at PS. Nangloi,
West District, Delhi for the offences punishable under sections
420/467/468/471/120-B IPC.
2.1 The complainant/respondent no. 2 who was a resident of Cuttack,
Orissa in complaint claimed ownership of two lands measuring 28
Bighas 16 Biswas and 7 Bighas 4 Biswas respectively situated in
Saffipur, Ranhola, Delhi. Darya Ram and Maya Ram were owners of
lands who in 1981 sold the land measuring 28 Bighas 16 Biswas to
the respondent no 2/the complainant and land measuring 7 Bighas 4
Biswas to J. C. Bhardwaj who later on sold it to the respondent no
2/the complainant in 1982. Atma Ram Aggarwal being a property
Signing Date:23.07.2024 CRL.M.C. 4643/2019and connected matters Page 4
dealer facilitated these transactions/deals and was having family ties
with the respondent no 2/the complainant. Atma Ram Aggarwal
conspired with 12 other individuals including his relatives or
acquaintances to forge documents related to the properties of the
respondent no 2/the complainant and they made six attempts to create
false documents for these properties. Atma Ram Aggarwal could not
succeed in five attempts but succeeded in the sixth attempt. Atma
Ram Aggarwal succeeded in transferring the land measuring 28
Bighas 16 Biswas in his favor and others by using forged documents.
Atma Ram Aggarwal to legitimize his acts convinced the respondent
no 2/the complainantto sell him the land for Rs. 1,10,00,000 in the
year 2000 and promised to pay Rs. 60 lacs through a demand draft
besides securing three petrol pumps for the family of the respondent
no 2/the complainant with the remaining Rs. 50 lacs. Atma Ram
Aggarwal provided Rs. 16 lacs by way of demand draft in Cuttack
and obtained the signatures of the respondent no 2/the complainant
on a non-judicial stamp paper and thereafter misused these signatures
to create a power of attorney in his name. Atma Ram Aggarwal on
25.02.2001 showed the respondent no 2/the complainant and her
Signing Date:23.07.2024 CRL.M.C. 4643/2019and connected matters Page 5
husband ten demand drafts total amounting to Rs. 44 lakh and
assured them about remaining payment through demand drafts. Atma
Ram Aggarwal along with his son Arvind Aggarwal and accomplices
on 05.03.2001 attempted to execute sale deed but the respondent no
2/the complainant refused to execute the sale deeds due to incomplete
payment. Atma Ram Aggarwal on 07.03.2001 took the respondent no
2/the complainant to M. S. Vats, the then Tehsildar, Punjabi Bagh to
obtain a No Objection Certificate (NOC) where the respondent no
2/the complainant denied signing any sale or transfer documents
except for her husband. However, the sale deeds were registered on
13.03.2001 on basis of forged power of attorney. Atma Ram
Aggarwal and others after registration applied for mutation of the
land which was granted on 07.04.2001. Atma Ram Aggarwal also
attempted to take control of the land measuring 7 Bighas 4 Biswas
which was earlier sold twice. FIR bearing no. 443/2002 (hereinafter
also referred to as "second FIR") was registered on the complaint of
the respondent no 2/the complainant against 13 accused including the
petitioners.
Signing Date:23.07.2024 CRL.M.C. 4643/2019and connected matters Page 6
3. The Cancellation Report after completion of investigation was
initially filed as it was revealed during investigation that the
complainant had filed a similar complaint in Cuttack, Orissa and on
the basis of which FIR bearing no 222(28) dated 22.05.2001, PS
Khurda (hereinafter also referred to as "first FIR") was already
registered. The Cancellation Report was accepted by the court vide
order dated 24.05.2003 passed by the court of Sh. B. S. Chumbak,
ACMM, Delhi. The respondent no 2/the complainant challenged the
order dated 24.05.2003 by filing a revision petition bearing no 611/03
on the ground that the respondent no 2/the complainant was not
summoned by the trial court before acceptance of the Cancellation
Report. The court of Sh. Deepak Jagotra, Additional Sessions Judge,
Delhi vide order dated 20.01.2004 allowed revision filed by the
respondent no 2/the complainant and case was remanded back to the
trial court with direction to issue notice to the respondent no 2/the
complainant and pass appropriate order after hearing the respondent
no 2/the complainant. The court of ACMM, Delhi vide order dated
04.10.2004 directed further investigation and the ACP, EOW Cell,
Crime Branch was directed to look into all the facts minutely and to
Signing Date:23.07.2024 CRL.M.C. 4643/2019and connected matters Page 7
collect the documents pertaining to both the pieces of land in order to
ascertain the claim made by the respondent no 2/the complainant that
two cases are altogether different. The charge sheet was filed after
completion of further investigation in the year 2010 for offences
punishable under sections
420/467/468/471/506/511/201/204/107/34/120B IPC against 11
accused including petitioners and accused Rajpal Rathi and Darya
Ram were shown in column no 12 as suspects. The cognizance was
taken on 07.12.2010 and accused were ordered to be summoned by
the court. The accused M. S. Vats challenged the order dated
07.12.2010 before the Sessions Court on ground that court at Delhi
did not have jurisdiction as the respondent no 2/the complainant has
already got registered FIR bearing no. 222(28), PS Khurda, Orissa
i.e., the first FIR and the subsequent FIR bearing no 443/2002 i.e.,the
second FIR cannot be registered on the basis of same allegations and
the said revision petition was dismissed vide order dated 04.06.2014
with liberty to raise these issues before the trial court at appropriate
stage. The accused, namely, Darya Ram, Raj Pal and Hari Ram had
Signing Date:23.07.2024 CRL.M.C. 4643/2019and connected matters Page 8
expired during pendency of the trial and the proceedings against them
were ordered to be abated.
4. The accused namely M. S. Vats, Atma Ram Agaarwal, Arvind
Aggarwal, Prem Shanker and Rajendera filed respective applications
for dropping of proceedings against them and the court of Ms. Charu
Aggarwal, CMM, West, Tis Hazari courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred
to as "the trial court") vide order dated 07.09.2017 dismissed the
applications for dropping of proceedings filed by Atma Ram
Aggarwal, Arvind Agarwal, Prem Shankar and Rajender. The trial
court vide order dated 07.09.2017 also framed charges against
accused namely Atma Ram Aggarwal. Arvind Aggarwal, Prem
Shanker, Gurcharan Singh, Rajendera, Suresh Mangla, Ranbir Singh
and Azad Singh for offences punishable under sections
420/467/468/471/120-B IPC and accused Maya Ram was charged for
offences punishable under sections 420/120-B IPC. The accused M.S.
Vats was ordered to be discharged as no prima facie material came
on record against him. The trial court in order dated 07.09.2017
regarding dropping of the proceedings on basis of the second FIR
observed that accused M. S. Vats, Atma Ram Aggarwal, Arvind
Signing Date:23.07.2024 CRL.M.C. 4643/2019and connected matters Page 9
Aggarwal, Prem Shanker and Rajender are seeking dropping of
proceedings qua them on the ground that FIR bearing no. 222(28)
registered at PS Khurda, Orissa i.e. the first FIR is already registered
against the accused persons on the same allegations/complaint,
therefore, the second FIR i.e. the present FIR cannot be registered in
view of judgment of T. T. Anthony V State of Kerala, AIR 2001
SC 2637 but held that in view of court, the accused persons cannot be
discharged on the ground of maintainability of the second FIR. The
trial court in order dated 07.09.2017 regarding issue of framing of
charges observed as under:-
21. On merits, the case of the prosecution is that accused
Atma Ram forged the signatures of the complainant on the
GPA dated 13.05.1994 executed in favour of accused
Rajender on which, accused Hari Ram (since deceased) was
witness. The said GPA dated 13.05.1994 was to be effect
that accused Rajender is authorized to manage the
property measuring 28 bigha 16 biswa owned by the
complainant. Accused Atma Ram again forged the
signatures of complainant on the GPA, agreement to sell,
affidavit, Will dated 18.01.2000 in respect of same property.
The said forged documents were executed by accused Atma
Ram in favour of accused Rajender. The said GPA dated
18.01.2000 was got registered in Orissa. On the basis of
these forged documents, the sale deed dated 28.01.2090, was
executed by accused Rajender in favour of accused Suresh
Kumar Mangla at Mumbai. Again, in order to grab ,this
property of the complainant, accused Atma Ram got filed
one civil suit by accused Azad Singh before Hon'ble High
Signing Date:23.07.2024 CRL.M.C. 4643/2019and connected matters Page 10
Court. The said suit was filed by accused Azad Singh
against accused Rajender. The said suit was also on the
basis of forged and fabricated documents which though
finally was withdrawn by accused Azad Singh. Again, on
the basis of forged GPA dated 13.05.1994,sale deed was
executed by accused Atma Ram in favour of accused
Suresh Mangla in respect of the same property. In the last
attempt, accused persons succeeded in grabbing the
property of the complainant as in said attempts, accused
Atma Ram took the signatures of the complainant on one
stamp paper of Rs. 50/- which subsequently was misused by
him by converting the said stamp paper into the GPA dated
28.08.2000 purported to be executed bycomplainant in
favour of accused Atma Ram. On the basis of this forged
GPAdated 28.08.2000, accused Atma Ram sold the
property measuring 28 bigha 16 biswa to accused Arvind
Aggarwal, S/o accused Atma Ram, Prem Shanker and
Gurcharan Singh, vide 3separate sale deeds dated
05.03.2000 which were got registered on 13.03.2000,
inwhich accused Ranbir Singh is witness in all those 3 sale
deeds. There are also allegations that no sale consideration
amount wasgiven by either of the accused, namely, Arvind
Aggarwal, Prem Shanker and Gurcharan Singh to
complainant in lieu of property allegedly purchased by
them from her.
22. As per the chargesheet, the accused persons not only
forged an fabricated the documents of property measuring
28 bigha 16 biswa of the complainant but they also executed
false documents of the property measuring 7 bigha 4 biswa
of the complainant. The said property was already sold by
accused Dariya Ram and Maya Ram to one J. C. Bhardwaj
and in the year 1982 the said J C. Bhardwaj sold the said
property to complainant. Despite the fact that the property
measuring 7 bigha 4 biswa was sold by accused Dariya
Ram and Maya Ram to J, C. Bhardwaj and thereafter by J.
C. Bhardwaj to complainant, accused Dariya Ram and
Maya Ram again executed a sale deed dated 08.09.1998 in
Signing Date:23.07.2024 CRL.M.C. 4643/2019and connected matters Page 11
favour of accused Suresh Kumar Mangla in which, accused
Atma Ram was the witness. On 30.09.1998, accused Dariya
Ram and Maya Ram executed a CPA dated 30.09,1998 in
favour of accused Raj Pal. On 30.09.1998, accused Hari
Ram in place of accused Suresh Kumar Mangla appeared
before the concerned Tehsildar for mutation of the
property.
23. From the aforesaid allegations, sufficient material is on
record to frame charge against accused Atma Ram, Arvind
Aggarwal, Prem Shanker, Gurcharan Singh, Rajender,
Suresh Mangla, Ranbir Singh and Azad Singh for the
offences u/s 420/467/468/471/120-B IPC.
33. In view of aforesaid discussion, there is sufficient
material on record to frame the charge against the accused
persons namely Atma Ram, Arvind Aggarwal, Prem
Shanker, Gurcharan Singh, Rajender, Suresh Mangla,
Ranbir Singh, Azad Singh u/s 420/467/468/471/120-B IPC.
There is sufficient material on record to frame charge
against accused Maya Ram u/s 420/120-B IPC. No prima
facie material has come on record against accused M. S.
Vats, accordingly he is discharged for the offences
chargesheeted against him.
34. In view of aforesaid discussion, four applications of
accused Aatma Ram, Arvind Agarwal, Prem Shankar and
Rajender for dropping of proceedings are dismissed.
5. The petitioners and Suresh Kumar Mangla being aggrieved by the
order on charge dated 07.09.2017 passed by the trial court filed
Criminal Revision Petitions bearing nos. 555/2017 titled as Atma
Ram Aggarwal V State, 556/2017 titled as Gurcharan Singh &
another V State, 557/2017 titled as Arvind Aggarwal V State,
Signing Date:23.07.2024 CRL.M.C. 4643/2019and connected matters Page 12
558/2017 titled as Azad Singh V State, and 559/2017 titled as
Suresh Kumar Mangla V State. The State also preferred the
Criminal Revision Petition bearing no. 486/2017 titled as State V
M. S. Vats to challenge discharge of the accused M. S. Vats vide
order dated 07.09.2017.
5.1 The court of Sh. Gorakh Nath Pandey, Additional Sessions Judge
-Fast Track Court, West, Tis Hazari Courts (hereinafter referred to as
"the revisional court") vide order dated 25.03.2019 (hereinafter
referred to as the "impugned order") dismissed the revision
petitions filed by the petitioners namely Atma Ram Aggarwal,
Gurcharan Singh, Prem Shankar Aggarwal, Arvind Aggarwal, Azad
Singh and the accused Suresh Kumar Mangla and allowed the
Criminal Revision Petition bearing no. 486/2017 titled as State V
M. S. Vats filed by the State and set aside order dated 07.09.2017
qua the accused M. S. Vats. The relevant portion of the impugned
order is reproduced verbatim as under:
9. I have gone through the impugned order, allegations
levelled against the accused persons in the complaint
alongwith the material documents on record filed alongwith
charge sheet. With the above guidelines in mind, I now
advert to the facts of the present case to decide whether on
the basis of the material placed before the trial court, it can
Signing Date:23.07.2024 CRL.M.C. 4643/2019and connected matters Page 13
reasonably be held that a case for framing charge against
the accused persons namely (i) Atma Ram Aggarwal, (ii)
Gurcharan Singh, (iii) Prem Shankar Aggarwal, (iv)
Arvind Aggarwal, (v) Azad Smgh & (vi) Suresh Kumar
Mangla under Section 420/467/468/471/120B IPC is made
out.
Pursuant to the notice, the 10 appeared and brought to the
notice of the court and filed the documents i.e. statement
recorded under Section 161 Cr. P. C. of the witnesses and
the copy of the same is taken on record in case file titled
"Atma Ram Aggarwal v. State". The relationship between
the parties/acquaintance and disputeregarding the
execution of the documents is prima facie apparent fromthe
materials on record and the said fact also appears to be well
withinthe knowledge of Sh. M. S. Vats, the concerned
Tehsildar. There is no merit in the contention of Ld.counsel
for the petitioners regardingdouble jeopardize as the
accused involved are different alongwith the case property.
The complainant repeatedly pointed out before the
Tehsildar that she has not executed any GPA and objected
regarding the mutation and therefore, the noting of the
Tehsildar that he is mutating the property on the basis of
the sale deed appears only a gimmick. Tehsildar was well
aware that the complainant did not execute any sale deed
dated 13.03.2001 and therefore, there is no basis to mutate
the property on the basis of the said sale deed. As observed,
on 05.03.2001 itself the complainant has refused to execute
the sale deed and on 07.03.2001, she was produced before
the Tehsildar/accused M. S. Vats and even before
Tehsildar, she specifically stated that she has not executed
any document pertaining to the sale/transfer of the
property or any GPA in favour of anyone except her
husband. The mutation of the property accordingly on
13.03.2001 on the basis of the alleged sale deed dated
05.03.2001 (the execution of the same is denied by the
complainant in presence of the Tehsildar) appears mainly a
conspiracy between the accused persons to cheat the
Signing Date:23.07.2024 CRL.M.C. 4643/2019and connected matters Page 14
complainant. There is sufficient materials on record to
proceed against the petitioners and accused M. S. Vats.
On the basis of the complaint filed by the complainant, the
case was registered and charge sheet under Section
420/467/468/471/506/511/201/204/107/120B/34 IPG was filed
against the accused persons. The Ld. Trial Court vide
impugned order thereafter framed the charge under
Section 420/467/468/471/120B IPC against the petitioners
and respondent M. S. Vats was discharged. I have gone
through the relevant material/documents on record,
statement/allegations of the complainant levelled against
the accused persons and evidence on record in support of
claim. Further the allegation made by the complainant for
the offence under Section 420/467/468/471/120B IPC
appears to be correctly made out against the petitioners.
The Ld. Trial Judge appears to be correct in his approach
and rightly ordered for framing charges against the
petitioners. There is no illegality or infirmity in the
impugned orders which warrant for any interference in this
respect.
As regards, the revision petition filed by the State against
the impugned order dated 07.09.2017 whereby the
respondent/accused M. S. Vats was discharged, this court is
of the considered view that he was well aware regarding the
transactions and knowingly manipulated the documents
and added note on the statement of the complainant though
the execution of the sale deed was specifically denied by the
complainant. There was sufficient material on record to
proceed against respondent/accused M. S. Vats as well as
other accused persons. The order regarding the discharge
of the accused M. S. Vats appears to be not sustainable and
needs to be reconsidered. There is no merit in the argument
on behalf of the respdndent/accused M. S. Vats regarding
want of sanction in view of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in (2015) ISCC 513 titled RajibRanjan&Ors. v. R.
Vijay Kumar, (2007) 1 SCC 1 titled Parkash Singh Badal &
Anr. Vs. State of Punjab &Ors., (2015) 13 SCC 87 titled
Signing Date:23.07.2024 CRL.M.C. 4643/2019and connected matters Page 15
Insp. of Police &Anr. Vs. Battenapatla Venkata
Ratnam&Anr. and (1997) 5 SCC 326 titled ShambhooNath
Mishra v. State of U.P. &Ors.
10. In the light of above discussion, the revision petitions
filed by the petitioners namely (i) Atma Ram Aggarwal, (ii)
Gurcharan Singh, (iii) Prem Shankar Aggarwal, (iv)
Arvind Aggarwal, (v) Azad Singh &(vi) Suresh Kumar
Mangla are dismissed.
11. The revision petition bearing No.486/2017 filed by the
State against the accused M. S. Vats is allowed and the
impugned order 08.09.2017 qua accused M. S. Vats is set
aside. The matter is remanded back to the Ld. Trial Court
with the direction to proceed in accordance with law. The
respondent/accused M. S. Vats is directed to appear before
the Ld. Trial Court on 12.04.2019. With the above
directions, the revision petition stands disposed of.
6. The petitioners being aggrieved filed the present petitions to set
aside the impugned order dated 25.03.2019 primarily on the grounds
that the revisional court has failed to appreciate the case of the
prosecution which is merely based on assumptions and presumptions
as there is no material on record indicating the commission of
offences. The revisional court has failed to appreciate that the
respondent no. 2 has registered the second FIR against the petitioners
based on the same facts as alleged in the first FIR by adding more
accused persons which is in complete violation of the law laid down
by the Supreme Court in TT Antony V State of Kerala & others.
Signing Date:23.07.2024 CRL.M.C. 4643/2019and connected matters Page 16
6.1 That the revisional court has ignored the fact that the Cancellation
Report dated 22.05.2003 pertaining to the second FIR was submitted
by the Investigating Officer and it was prima facie evident from
perusal of the Cancellation Report that the second FIR was registered
on the same facts as mentioned in the first FIR by the same
complainant in connection with the same land. The Cancellation
Report was accepted by the trial court vide order dated 24.05.2003.
The impugned order was passed on erroneous finding that accused
involved in first FIR bearing No. 222(28) dated 22.05.2001 under
sections 419/420/467/468/471/120B/34 IPC registered at P.S-
Khurda, Orissa and second FIR bearing No. 443/2002 dated
29.05.2002 registered at PS Nangloi, Delhi under sections
420/467/468/471/120-B IPC have different accused persons and
different case properties. The impugned order is grossly illegal as it
was passed after taking into account the statements under section 161
of the Code which were filed directly by the Investigating Officer in
the revisional court which were never a part of the charge-sheet and
the revisional court erred by placing reliance on such statements
Signing Date:23.07.2024 CRL.M.C. 4643/2019and connected matters Page 17
while passing the impugned order. It was prayed that impugned order
passed by the revisional court be set aside.
7. The respondent no.1/state filed status report wherein it was stated
that after completion of investigation it was revealed that total 6
attempts were made by the petitioners in conspiracy with other co-
accused persons to take hold of both pieces/plots of land owned by
the complainant. That investigation of the case revealed that the first
FIR registered at PS Khurda, Orissa and chargesheet filed pursuant to
first FIR was with regard to only one attempt to grab the land/plot of
the complainant measuring 28 Bigha 16 Biswa by the accused
persons for which forged GPA was got registered with Sub-Registrar
Khurda (Orissa) and remaining five attempts to grab the land/plots of
the complainant were made by different sets of accused persons in
Delhi and series of forged documents at different point of time were
prepared in these attempts. It was further stated that the present
petitions be dismissed.
8. The perusal of the impugned order reflects that the revisional court
while passing the impugned order has considered the material on
record which as per the revisional court was prima facie able to prove
Signing Date:23.07.2024 CRL.M.C. 4643/2019and connected matters Page 18
the relationship between the parties and dispute regarding the
execution of documents and the said fact was also in the knowledge
of M.S. Vats, the concerned Tehsildar. The revisional court has
further observed that there is no merit in the contention of the counsel
for the petitioners regarding double jeopardy as the accused involved
in the second FIR are different from the first FIR and is related to
different case property. That the complainant has repeatedly pointed
out before the Tehsildar that she has not executed any GPA who was
well aware of the fact that the complainant did not execute any sale
deed dated 13.03.2001 and the property cannot be mutated on the
basis of the said sale deed. The revisional court also observed that a
conspiracy between the accused persons and Tehsildar was
committed in order to cheat the respondent no 2/the complainant.
That there was sufficient material on record to proceed against the
petitioners and the accused M.S Vats.
9. The counsel for the petitioners advanced oral arguments and also
submitted written arguments. The counsel for the petitioners argued
that the revisional court has failed to appreciate the fact that the
respondent no. 2/the complainant has registered the second FIR
Signing Date:23.07.2024 CRL.M.C. 4643/2019and connected matters Page 19
against the petitioners based on the same facts as alleged in the first
FIR by adding more accused persons which is in complete violation
of the law laid down by the Supreme court in TT Antony V State of
Kerala & others. The revisional court has ignored the fact that the
Cancellation Report dated 22.05.2003 pertaining to the second FIR
was submitted by the Investigating Officer and from bare perusal of
the Cancellation Report it was prima facie evident that the second
FIR was registered on the same facts as mentioned in the first FIR by
the same complainant i.e. the respondent no 2 in connection with the
same land. The Cancellation Report was accepted by the trial court
vide order dated 24.05.2003. The counsel for the petitioners has
placed reliance upon T. T. Antony V State of Kerala & others,
(2001) 6 SCC 181, Babubhai V State of Gujarat, (2010) 12 SCC
254, Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah V Central Bureau of
Investigation & another, (2013) 6 SCC 348, Arnab Manoranjan
Goswami V State of Maharashtra, (2020) 14 SCC 12 and Anju
Chaudhary V State of U.P., (2013) 6 SCC 384 and argued that the
present petitions be allowed and the impugned order dated
25.03.2019 be set aside.
Signing Date:23.07.2024 CRL.M.C. 4643/2019and connected matters Page 20
10.The Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent no.1/state in
arguments defended the impugned order passed by the revisional
court and submitted that the present petitions are liable to be
dismissed.
11.The counsel for the respondent no. 2/the complainant advanced
oral arguments and also submitted written submissions. The counsel
for the respondent no 2/the complainant argued that the present
petitions are not maintainable as perusal of the chargesheet makes
clear that both the FIR filed by the respondent no 2/the complainant
are on different facts and do not form part of the same transaction. It
was further argued that both FIRs are registered at different places
and acts complained of were committed at different time and by
different set of persons. The trial court has rightly framed charges
against the petitioners and other co accused on basis of the material
evidence. The counsel for the respondent no 2/the complainant
further argued that the facts of present case are different from T.T
Anthony V State of Kerala & others, AIR 2001 SC 2637 as in T.T
Anthony case, the second FIR was lodged on basis of same facts as
the incidence took place on the same date and same place but on
Signing Date:23.07.2024 CRL.M.C. 4643/2019and connected matters Page 21
receipt of subsequent information whereas in the present case both
FIRs are lodged for offences committed as different places at
different times by different sets of accused. The revisional court in
the impugned order has rightly dealt with each issue and has taken a
just and reasonable view based on the facts and circumstances of the
case. The counsel for the respondent no. 2 has placed reliance on
Mohan Baitha V State of Bihar, AIR 2001 SC 1490, Central
Bureau of Investigation V Aryan Singh, 2023 SCC OnLine SC
379, Kailash Verma V Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation
& another, (2005) 2 SCC 571, Sharad Saxena V State & others,
2019 SCC OnLine DeL 11265 and Balbir V State of Haryana
&another, (2000) 1 SCC 285 and argued that the present petitions
are liable to be dismissed.
12. It is necessary to appreciate issues subject matters of present
petitions to peruse both FIRs. The perusal of first FIR i.e. FIR bearing
no 222(28) dated 22.05.2001 registered at PS Khurda, Orissa reflects
that it was got registered on basis of the complaint made by the
respondent no 2/the complainant primarily on allegations that she
owned land measuring 28 Bighas and 16 Biswas and another land
Signing Date:23.07.2024 CRL.M.C. 4643/2019and connected matters Page 22
measuring 7 Bighas and 4 Biswas situated in the revenue estate of
village Saffipur Ranholla, Tahsil Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi-41 since
1981 and in peaceful possession thereof since then and Atma Ram
Aggarwal was instrumental in purchase of the said land who
developed good relation with the respondent no 2/the complainant and
used to supervise the land as per instructions given by the husband of
the respondent no 2/the complainant. The husband of the respondent
no 2/the complainant had suffered from various ailments due to
accident and Atma Ram Aggarwal after taking undue advantage of
absence of husband of the respondent no 2/the complainant along with
his son Arvind Aggarwal and others hatched a conspiracy to grab and
usurp land of the respondent no 2/the complainant. It was further
alleged that Atma Ram Aggarwal on the basis of forged ration card
prepared one Power of Attorney in the name of Rajendera, son of
Sultan Singh, resident of 148, viliage Sultan Puri, Delhi by posing
another lady as the respondent no 2/the complainant and got Power of
Attorney registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Khurda on
18.01.2000 authorizing Rajendra to sell land of the respondent no
2/the complainant situated at Delhi. The respondent no 2/the
Signing Date:23.07.2024 CRL.M.C. 4643/2019and connected matters Page 23
complainant also alleged that Atma Ram Aggarwal also prepared one
affidavit executed before the Notary Public S.S. Mishra, Advocate,
Khurda on 18.01.2000 and also prepared one agreement to sell on
19.01.2000 attested by said Notary, Khurda. Atma Ram Aggarwal also
prepared one deed of will allegedly executed in name of the
respondent no 2/the complainant before the said Notary. It was also
alleged that Jairam Agarwal and Arvind Aggarwal helped Atma Ram
Aggarwal in these transactions and Jairam Agrawal signed as witness
in the registered Power of Attorney Deed fully knowing it to be
forged. Atma Ram Aggarwal on the strength of the forged documents
executed at Khurda got a sale Deed in respect of above said land
registered in favour of Suresh Kumar Gupta who happens to be one of
close relation of Atma Ram Aggarwal and said sale deed was
registered in Bombay vide Registered Conveyance Deed dated
28.01.2000. Suresh Kumar Gupta on basis of Sale Deed applied to the
Tahsildar, Punjabi Bagh, Nangloi, Delhi to mutate abovesaid land.
Atma Ram also transferred the above said land to his three nominees
through another forged power of attorney executed at Delhi
subsequently on 13.03.2001 and got above land mutated in favour of
Signing Date:23.07.2024 CRL.M.C. 4643/2019and connected matters Page 24
his nominees. The respondent no 2/the complainant came to know
about these facts when she received a notice from the Tahsildar
regarding mutation on 07.04.2001 and subsequent enquiry of the facts.
The first FIR was registered under sections
419/420/467/468/471/120B/34 IPC against Atma Ram Aggrawal,
Arvind Aggarwal, Rajendera, Suresh Gupta, Jairam Agarwal, Pradeep
Kumar Nanda and Dillip Kumar Pattjoshi. It is as such reflecting
from perusal of first FIR that it was got registered at PS Khurda,
Cuttack on alleged execution of forged ration card, General Power
of Attorney, affidavit and Sale Deed at Khurda, Orissa by the
respondent no 2/the complainant pertaining to land/plot
measuring 28 Bighas and 16 Biswas situated in the revenue estate
of village Saffipur Ranholla, Tahsil Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi-41
and stated to be owned by the respondent no 2/the complainant
and seven persons as named hereinabove were named/implicated
in first FIR registered at PS Khurda, Orissa.
13. The perusal of the second FIR bearing no 443/2002 dated
29.05.2002 reflects that it was registered under sections
420/467/468/471/120B IPC at PS Nangloi on the complaint made by
Signing Date:23.07.2024 CRL.M.C. 4643/2019and connected matters Page 25
the respondent no 2/the complainant. It is stated in second FIR that the
respondent no 2/the complainant purchased land measuring 7 Bighas 4
Biswas situated in village safipur Ranhola, Delhi - 41 in year 1982 and
Atma Ram Aggarwal was instrumental in purchase of said land who
developed cordial family relations with the respondent no 2/the
complainant and was looking after the land as per instructions of the
respondent no 2/the complainant. Atma Ram Aggarwal taking undue
advantage of illness of the husband of the respondent no 2/the
complainant due to accident in collusion and in connivance with other
accussed as named in the FIR hatched a criminal conspiracy to grab
above land of the respondent no 2/the complainant. Atma Ram
Aggarwal in order to grab land measuring 28 Bighas and 16 Biswas
prepared a General Power of Attorney (GPA) dated 13.05.1994 in
name of Rajender by forging signature of the respondent no 2/the
complainant which was witnessed by Hari Ram and another person
and Rajender applied for grant of NOC on the basis of the GPA dated
13.05.1994 before M.S. Vats, Tehsildar, Punjabi Bagh for selling the
land to Suresh Kumar. Atma Ram Aggarwal and Rajender again to
grab land of the respondent no 2/the complainant prepared another set
Signing Date:23.07.2024 CRL.M.C. 4643/2019and connected matters Page 26
of documents including GPA, Affidavit, Deed of Will, Agreement to
Sell dated 18.01.2000 by forging signature of the respondent no 2/the
complainant in Hindi and the GPA got registered before the Sub-
Registrar Khurda by impersonating another lady as the respondent no
2/the complainant. Thereafter, Rajender on basis of the GPA dated
18.01.2000 executed Sale Deed dated 28.01.2000 in favour of Suresh
Kumar which was got registered before Registrar, Mumbai. Suresh
Gupta on the basis of the Conveyance Deed dated 18.01.2000 applied
for mutation of land in his name before M.S. Vats, Tehsildar, Punjabi
Bagh. It was also alleged that Azad Singh also moved an application
for grant of NOC before Tehsildar, Punjabi Bagh on basis of forged
documents and subsequently moved another application before the
Tehsildar, Punjabi Bagh. Azad Singh also filed suit bearing no
360/2000 before this Court of Delhi on the basis of forged documents
and said suit was withdrawn by the Azad Singh vide order dated
25.09.2000. The respondent no 2/the complainant not impleaded as
necessary party in the suit.
13.1 Darya and Maya Ram sold land measuring 7 Bighas and 4 Biswas
bearing Khasra No. 52/2 (4-16), and 3/2 (2-8) situated in the revenue
Signing Date:23.07.2024 CRL.M.C. 4643/2019and connected matters Page 27
estate of Safipur Ranhola, Delhi to J.C. Bhardwaj vide Sale Deed
dated 09.11.1981 and J. C. Bhardwaj sold said land to the respondent
no 2/the complainant vide Sale Deed dated 19.06.1982 with delivery
of possession and the said Sale Deed was witnessed by Atma Ram
Aggarwal. However, Atma Ram Aggarwal on 08.09.1998 along with
associates Suresh Kumar, Hari Ram and Rajpal induced Darya and
Maya Ram to execute Sale Deed dated 08.09.1998 in favour of Suresh
Kumar of land measuring 7 Bighas and 4 Biswas while possession of
the said land was already handed over to the respondent no 2/the
complainant by J.C.Bhardwaj on 19.06.1982. Darya and Maya Ram
were also induced to executed SPA dated 08.09.1998 in favour of Raj
Pal for the purpose to depose in the mutation proceedings and to avoid
appearance of Darya and Maya Ram before the Tehsildar. Suresh
Kumar on basis of Sale Deed dated 08.09.1998, Suresh Kumar applied
for mutation vide application dated 14.09.1998 which was mutated
vide order dated 30.09.1998.
13.2 The respondent no 2/the complainant further alleged that as Atma
Ram Aggarwal and his associates could not succeed in grabbing the
land measuring 28 Bighas and 16 Biswas came to the respondent no
Signing Date:23.07.2024 CRL.M.C. 4643/2019and connected matters Page 28
2/the complainant at Cuttack and expressed his readiness to purchase
the land measuring 28 Bighas and 16 Biswas for a total sale
consideration of Rs. 1,10,00,000/- and conveyed his readiness to pay
Rs. 60 lacs by bank drafts and for balance consideration of Rs. 50 lacs,
he proposed to install and hand over three fully operational petrol
pump in favour of family members of the respondent no 2/the
complainant. The respondent no 2/the complainant had agreed to sell
the land to Atma Ram Aggarwal. Atma Ram Aggarwal was contacted
in Delhi by the husband of the complainant regarding the allotment of
petrol pumps but the petrol pumps could not be allotted and promised
to pay balance amount of Rs. 50 lacs. Atma Ram Aggarwal also
requested the respondent no 2/the complainant to execute four sale
deeds dated 05.03.2001.The respondent no 2/the complainant also
received one undated notice and detailed notice dated 31.03.2001 from
Tehsildar, Punjabi Bagh regarding mutation proceedings relating to 28
Bighas and 16 Biswas land. The respondent no 2/the complainant
came to Delhi on 09.04.2001 and on inquiries came to know about the
mutation of land in favour of nominees of Atma Ram Aggarwal. The
complainant came to know that Atma Ram Aggarwal signed the sale
Signing Date:23.07.2024 CRL.M.C. 4643/2019and connected matters Page 29
deed as GPA of the respondent no 2/the complainant. The complainant
also levelled other allegations. In FIR, Atma Ram Aggarwal, Arvind
Aggarwal, Suresh Kumar Mangla @ Gupta, Gurucharan Singh, Prem
Shankar Aggarwal, Rajindra, Ranbir Singh, Raj Pal, Azad Singh and
M.S. Vats, Tehsildar, Punjabi Bagh were implicated.It is reflecting
from perusal of the second FIR bearing no 443/2002, it also pertains
to land/plot measuring 7 Bighas and 4 Biswas bearing Khasra No.
52/2 (4-16), and 3/2 (2-8) situated in the revenue estate of Safipur
Ranhola, Delhi and few accused who were not implicated in the
first FIR bearing no 222(28) dated 22.05.2001 were implicated in
the second FIR bearing no 443/2002.
14. Issue which needs judicial consideration and also argued by the
counsel for the petitioners is whether the petitioners are entitled for
discharge on the ground that the respondent no. 2/the complainant has
registered the second FIR against the petitioners based on the same
facts as alleged in the first FIR just by adding more accused persons
and second FIR is in complete violation of the law laid down by the
Supreme court in TT Antony V State of Kerala & others. The
Supreme Court in T. T. Antony‟s case also considered the issue
Signing Date:23.07.2024 CRL.M.C. 4643/2019and connected matters Page 30
whether registration of a fresh case which is in the nature of the second
FIR under Section 154 of the Code is valid and can it form the basis of
a fresh investigation? The Supreme Court observed that there can be
no second FIR and consequently there 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 offences. It was further observed that on
receipt of information about a cognizable offence or an incident giving
rise to a cognizable offence or offences and on entering the FIR in the
station house diary, the officer in charge of a Police Station has to
investigate not merely the cognizable offence reported in the FIR but
also other connected offences found to have been committed in the
course of the same transaction or the same occurrence and file one or
more reports as provided in Section 173 of the Code. It was
accordingly observed as under:-
18. An information given under sub-section (1) of Section
154 of Cr.P.C. is commonly known as First Information
Report (F.I.R.) though this term is not used in the Code. It
is a very important document. And as its nick name
suggests it is the earliest and the first information of a
cognizable offence recorded by an officer in charge of a
police station. It sets the criminal law into motion and
marks the commencement of the investigation which ends
Signing Date:23.07.2024 CRL.M.C. 4643/2019and connected matters Page 31
up with the formation of opinion under Section 169 or 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
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. Take a case
where an FIR mentions cognizable offence under Section
307 or 326 I.P.C. and the investigating agency learns during
the investigation or receives a fresh information that the
victim died, no fresh FIR under Section 302 I.P.C. need be
registered which will be irregular; in such a case alteration
of the provision of law in the first FIR is the proper course
to adopt. Let us consider a different situation in which H
having killed W, his wife, informs the police that she is
killed by an unknown person or knowing that W is killed
by his mother or sister, H owns up the responsibility and
during investigation the truth is detected; it does not
require filing of fresh FIR against H - the real offender-who
can be arraigned in the report under Section 173(2) or
Signing Date:23.07.2024 CRL.M.C. 4643/2019and connected matters Page 32
173(8) of Cr.P.C., as the case may be. It is of course
permissible for the investigating officer to send up a report
to the concerned Magistrate even earlier that investigation
is being directed against the person suspected to be the
accused.
19. The scheme of the Cr.P.C. is that an officer in charge of
a Police Station has to commence investigation as provided
in Section 156 or 157 of Cr.P.C. on the basis of entry of the
First Information Report, on coming to know of the
commission of a cognizable offence. On completion of
investigation and on the basis of evidence collected he has
to form opinion under Section 169 or 170 of Cr.P.C., as the
case may be, and forward his report to the concerned
Magistrate under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. However, even
after filing such a report if he comes into possession of
further information or material, he need not register a
fresh FIR, he is empowered to make further investigation,
normally with the leave of the court, and where during
further investigation he collects further evidence, oral or
documentary, he is obliged to forward the same with one or
more further reports; this is the import of sub-section (8)
of Section 173 Cr.P.C.
20. From the above discussion it follows that under the
scheme of the provisions of Sections
154, 155, 156,157, 162, 169, 170 and 173 of Cr.P.C. only the
earliest or the first information in regard to the commission
of a cognizable offence satisfies the requirements of Section
154 Cr.P.C. Thus there can be no second F.I.R. and
consequently there 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 offences. On receipt of
information about a cognizable offence or an incident
giving rise to a cognizable offence or offences and on
entering the F.I.R. in the station house diary, the officer in
charge of a Police Station has to investigate not merely the
cognizable offence reported in the FIR but also other
connected offences found to have been committed in the
Signing Date:23.07.2024 CRL.M.C. 4643/2019and connected matters Page 33
course of the same transaction or the same occurrence and
file one or more reports as provided in Section 173 of the
Cr.P.C.
21. The learned Solicitor General relied on the judgment of
this Court in Ram LalNarang&Ors. Vs. State (Delhi
Administration [1979 (2) S.C.C. 322] (referred to as
Narangs case) to contend that there can be a second F.I.R.
in respect of the same subject matter. In that case the
contention urged by the appellant was that the police had
committed illegality, acted without jurisdiction in
investigating into the second case and the Delhi Court acted
illegally in taking cognizance of that (the second) case. A
reference to the facts of that case would be interesting. Two
precious antique pillars of sand stone were deposited in the
court of Ilaqa Magistrate, Karnal, as stolen property. One
N.N. Malik filed an application before the Magistrate
seeking custody of the pillars to make in detail study on the
pretext that he was a research scholar. It appears that the
then Chief Judicial Magistrate of Karnal, (H.L. Mehra),
was a friend of Malik. At the instance of Mehra the said
Ilaqa Magistrate ordered that the custody of the pillars be
given to Malik on his executing a bond. About three months
thereafter Malik deposited two pillars in the court of Ilaqa
Magistrate, Karnal. After sometime it came to light that the
pillars returned by Malik were not the original genuine
pillars but were fake pillars. An F.I.R. was lodged against
both Malik and Mehra under Section 120-B read
with Sections 406 and 420 of I.P.C. alleging conspiracy to
commit criminal breach of trust and cheating. The C.B.I.
after necessary investigation filed charge sheet in the court
of Special Magistrate, Ambala, against both of them.
Ultimately on the application of the public prosecutor the
case was permitted to be withdrawn and the accused were
discharged. Sometime later the original genuine pillars
were found in London which led to registering an F.I.R. in
Delhi under Section 120-B read with Section 411 of I.P.C,
and Section 25(1) of the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act,
1972 against three persons who were brothers (referred to
Signing Date:23.07.2024 CRL.M.C. 4643/2019and connected matters Page 34
as 'Narangs'). The gravamen of the charge against them
was that they, Malik and Mehra, conspired together to
obtain custody of the genuine pillars, got duplicate pillars
made by experienced sculptors and had them substituted
with a view to smuggle out the original genuine pillars to
London. After issuing process for appearance of Narangs
by the Magistrate at Delhi, an application was filed for
dropping the proceedings against them on the ground that
the entire second investigation was illegal as the case on the
same facts was already pending before Ambala Court,
therefore, the Delhi Court acted without jurisdiction in
taking cognizance of the case on the basis of illegal
investigation and the report forwarded by the police. The
Magistrate referred the case to the High Court and
Narangs also filed an application under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings. The High Court declined
to quash the proceedings, dismissed the application of
Narangs and thus answered the reference. On appeal to this
Court it was contended that the subject-matter of the two
F.I.Rs. and two charge-sheets being the same there was an
implied bar on the power of the police to investigate into
the subsequent F.I.R. and the court at Delhi to take
cognizance upon the report of such information. This Court
indicated that the real question was whether the two
conspiracies were in substance and truth the same and held
that the conspiracies in the two cases were not identical. It
appears to us that the Court did not repel the contention of
the appellant regarding the illegality of the second FIR and
the investigation based thereon being vitiated, but on facts
found that the two FIRs in truth and substance were
different - the first was a smaller conspiracy and the second
was the larger conspiracy as it turned out eventually. It was
pointed out that even under the Code of 1898 after filing of
final report there could be further investigation and
forwarding of further report. The 1973 Cr.P.C. specifically
provides for further investigation after forwarding of
report under sub-section (2) of Section 173 of Cr.P.C. and
forwarding of further report or reports to the concerned
Signing Date:23.07.2024 CRL.M.C. 4643/2019and connected matters Page 35
Magistrate under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. It follows that if
the gravamen of the charges in the two FIRs - the first and
the second - is in substance and truth the same, registering
the second FIR and making fresh investigation and
forwarding report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. will be
irregular and the Court can not take cognizance of the
same.
14.1 The counsel for the petitioners also referred Babubhai V State
of Gujarat, Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah V Central Bureau of
Investigation & another, Arnab Manoranjan Goswami V State of
Maharashtra and Anju Chaudhary V State of U.P., (2013) 6 SCC
384. The Supreme Court in Babubhai V State of Gujarat observed
that after referring T. T. Antony V State of Kerala and other
relevant decisions observed that 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 but in such cases he need not
enter each piece of information in the Diary and 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 of the Code. It was
further observed that in such a case the court has to examine the facts
Signing Date:23.07.2024 CRL.M.C. 4643/2019and connected matters Page 36
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
and if the answer is affirmative, the second FIR is liable to be
quashed. It was further observed that 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. The Supreme Court in Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah V
Central Bureau of Investigation & another observed that a case of
fresh investigation based on second or successive FIR is not being a
counter case, filed in connection with the same or connected
cognizable offence alleged to have been committed in the course of
same transaction and in respect of which pursuant to first FIR either
investigation is underway or final report under section 173(2) has
been forwarded to the Magistrate, is liable to be interfered by the
High Court by exercise of power under section 482 or under Articles
226/227 of the Constitution. It was further observed that a second
FIR which is not a cross FIR in respect of an offence or different
Signing Date:23.07.2024 CRL.M.C. 4643/2019and connected matters Page 37
offences committed in course of the same transaction is not only
permissible but it violates Article 21 of the Constitution. It was also
said that principles laid down in T. T. Antony have not be diluted in
any subsequent judgment. The Supreme Court in Arnab
Manoranjan Goswami V State of Maharashtra observed that the
law concerning multiple criminal proceedings on the same cause of
action has been analyzed in T. T. Antony case. It was held that
barring situations in which a counter-case is filed, a fresh
investigation or second FIR on basis of same or connected cognizable
offence would constitute an abuse of statutory power of investigation
and may be a fit case for the exercise of power either under section
482 of the Code or Article 226/227 of the Constitution. The Supreme
Court in Anju Chaudhary V State of U.P. also observed as under:-
14. On the plain construction of the language and scheme of
Sections 154, 156 and 190 of the Code, it cannot be
construed or suggested that there can be more than one
FIR about an occurrence. However, the opening words of
Section 154 suggest that every information relating to
commission of a cognizable offence shall be reduced to
writing by the officer in-charge of a Police Station. This
implies that there has to be the first information report
about an incident which constitutes a cognizable offence.
The purpose of registering an FIR is to set the machinery of
criminal investigation into motion, which culminates with
filing of the police report in terms of Section 173(2) of the
Signing Date:23.07.2024 CRL.M.C. 4643/2019and connected matters Page 38
Code. It will, thus, be appropriate to follow the settled
principle that there cannot be two FIRs registered for the
same offence. However, where the incident is separate;
offences are similar or different, or even where the
subsequent crime is of such magnitude that it does not fall
within the ambit and scope of the FIR recorded first, then a
second FIR could be registered. The most important aspect
is to examine the inbuilt safeguards provided by the
legislature in the very language of Section 154 of the Code.
These safeguards can be safely deduced from the principle
akin to double jeopardy, rule of fair investigation and
further to prevent abuse of power by the investigating
authority of the police. Therefore, second FIR for the same
incident cannot be registered. Of course, the Investigating
Agency has no determinative right. It is only a right to
investigate in accordance with the provisions of the Code.
The filing of report upon completion of investigation, either
for cancellation or alleging commission of an offence, is a
matter which once filed before the court of competent
jurisdiction attains a kind of finality as far as police is
concerned, may be in a given case, subject to the right of
further investigation but wherever the investigation has
been completed and a person is found to be prima facie
guilty of committing an offence or otherwise, reexamination
by the investigating agency on its own should not be
permitted merely by registering another FIR with regard to
the same offence. If such protection is not given to a
suspect, then possibility of abuse of investigating powers by
the Police cannot be ruled out. It is with this intention in
mind that such interpretation should be given to Section
154 of the Code, as it would not only further the object of
law but even that of just and fair investigation.
15. It has to be examined on the merits of each case whether
a subsequently registered FIR is a second FIR about the
same incident or offence or is based upon distinct and
different facts and whether its scope of inquiry is entirely
different or not. It will not be appropriate for the Court to
Signing Date:23.07.2024 CRL.M.C. 4643/2019and connected matters Page 39
lay down one straightjacket formula uniformly applicable
to all cases. This will always be a mixed question of law and
facts depending upon the merits of a given case.
43. It is true that law recognizes common trial or a common
FIR being registered for one series of acts so connected
together as to form the same transaction as contemplated
under Section 220 of the Code. There cannot be any
straight jacket formula, but this question has to be
answered on the facts of each case. This Court in the case
of Mohan Baitha v. State of Bihar [(2001) 4 SCC 350], held
that the expression „same transaction‟ from its very nature
is incapable of exact definition. It is not intended to be
interpreted in any artificial or technical sense. Common
sense in the ordinary use of language must decide whether
or not in the very facts of a case, it can be held to be one
transaction.
44. It is not possible to enunciate any formula of universal
application for the purpose of determining whether two or
more acts constitute the same transaction. Such things are
to be gathered from the circumstances of a given case
indicating proximity of time, unity or proximity of place,
continuity of action, commonality of purpose or design.
Where two incidents are of different times with
involvement of different persons, there is no commonality
and the purpose thereof different and they emerge from
different circumstances, it will not be possible for the Court
to take a view that they form part of the same transaction
and therefore, there could be a common FIR or subsequent
FIR could not be permitted to be registered or there could
be common trial.
45. Similarly, for several offences to be part of the same
transaction, the test which has to be applied is whether they
are so related to one another in point of purpose or of cause
and effect, or as principal and subsidiary, so as to result in
one continuous action. Thus, where there is a commonality
of purpose or design, where there is a continuity of action,
Signing Date:23.07.2024 CRL.M.C. 4643/2019and connected matters Page 40
then all those persons involved can be accused of the same
or different offences "committed in the course of the same
transaction".
15. It is correct that Cancellation Report was filed after completion of
the investigation in pursuance of the second FIR bearing no 443/2002
wherein it was mentioned that FIR bearing no 222(28) dated
21.05.2001 i.e. first FIR registered at PS Khurda, Orissa and the
second FIR have been registered by the respondent no 2/the
complainant on the same facts regarding the same lands. It was
further mentioned that investigation of first FIR i.e. 222(28) dated
22.05.2001 registered at PS Khurda, Orissa is being conducted by
Orissa Police including allegations of transfer of land in question in
favour of three accused namely, Prem Shanker Aggarwal, Arvind
Aggarwal and Gurucharan Singh through forged GPA stated to be
executed at Cuttack and mutation of the said land in the name of
above mentioned three accused is continuing in nature and no further
investigation is required to be conducted at Delhi. It was prayed that
Cancellation Report be accepted and accused namely Prem Shankar
Aggarwal, Gurucharan Singh and Arvind Aggarwal be discharged.
The Cancellation Report was ordered to be accepted vide order dated
24.05.2003 but order dated 24.05.2003 was set aside vide order dated
Signing Date:23.07.2024 CRL.M.C. 4643/2019and connected matters Page 41
20.01.2004 passed by the court of Additional Sessions Judge.
Thereafter, further investigation was directed vide order dated
04.10.2004 passed by the court of ACMM, Delhi and charge sheet
was filed after completion of further investigation for offences
punishable under sections
420/467/468/471/506/511/201/204/107/34/120B IPC on which the
cognizance was taken vide order dated 07.12.2010.
15.1 The Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent no 1 and
the counsel for the respondent no 2/the complainant in view of above
facts argued that both FIRs filed by the complainant are on different
facts and do not form part of the same transaction as both FIRs were
registered at different places and time and based on different facts. It
was further argued that the trial court rightly framed charges and
impugned order does not call for any interference and law laid down
in T. T. Antony‟s case is not applicable in the present case.
16. The perusal and comparison of both FIRs reflect that first FIR at
PS Khurda pertains to land measuring 28 Bighas 16 Biswas wherein
07 accused were implicated while second FIR at PS Nangloi pertains
to lands measuring 28 Bighas 16 Biswas and 07 Bighas 04 Biswas
Signing Date:23.07.2024 CRL.M.C. 4643/2019and connected matters Page 42
wherein 11 accused were implicated. The first FIR registered at PS
Khurda is based on allegations that the Atma Ram Aggarwal has
created fake documents to grab land of the respondent no 2/the
complainant and these fake documents were ration card no 17 dated
17.12.1998 obtained in the name of the respondent no 2/the
complainant; Power of Attorney prepared in name of Rajendera
stated to be executed by the respondent no 2/the complainant and
witnessed by Jai Ram Agarwal registered in office of Sub-Registrar,
Khurda on 18.01.2000; Affidavit dated 18.01.2000, notarised by
Notary Public namely S.S. Mishra, Advocate, Khurda; Agreement to
Sell dated 19.01.2000 prepared by Atma Ram Aggarwal in name of
Suresh Kumar Gupta which was attested by same Notary and Will
dated 19.01.2000 allegedly executed by the respondent no 2/the
complainant and these documents were prepared by Atma Ram
Aggarwal and other co-accused to grab the land of the respondent no
2/the complainant measuring 28 Bighas 16 Biswas. The second FIR
registered at PS Nangloi is based on a forged GPA dated 28.08.2000
in favour of Atma Ram Aggarwal which was witnessed by the
husband of the respondent no 2/the complainant and on the basis of
Signing Date:23.07.2024 CRL.M.C. 4643/2019and connected matters Page 43
said forged GPA, Atma Ram Aggarwal has prepared three sale deeds
dated 05.03.2001 in the names of Arvind Aggarwal, Prem Shankar
Aggarwal and Gurcharan Singh. The counsel for the respondent no
2/the complainant argued both FIRs are based on different
transactions which involves different buyers and sellers, different
documents used for each transaction and different peoples were
involved in the commission of crime.
17. The Supreme Court in T. T. Antony V State of Kerala and in
subsequent decisions held that FIR marks the commencement of the
investigation and during investigation, more information than one can
be given to the Investigating Officer in respect of the same incident
involving one or more than one cognizable offences and in such
case, the Investigating Officer need not enter every one of them in the
station house diary and other information made after the
commencement of the investigation will be statements falling
under section 162 of the Code and no such information/statement can
properly be treated as an FIR as it would in effect be a second FIR
which in not in conformity with the scheme of the Code. It was
further held that if first information in regard to the commission of a
Signing Date:23.07.2024 CRL.M.C. 4643/2019and connected matters Page 44
cognizable offence satisfies the requirements of Section 154 of the
Code then there can be no second FIR and as such there can be no
fresh investigation on receipt of subsequent information in respect of
the same cognizable offence. However, the court has to examine the
facts and circumstances resulting into registration of both FIRs and
the test of sameness has to be applied to ascertain the commonality of
incident, transaction and allegations in both FIRs. The second FIR is
permissible if it is different and is in respect of the two different
incidents/crimes.
18.The trial court vide order dated 07.09.2017 framed charges against
accused including the petitioners and also dismissed applications
filed by the petitioners for dropping of proceedings by rejecting
contentions of the petitioners that both FIRs are based on similar
allegations and order dated 07.09.2017 was upheld by the revisional
court vide the impugned order. The purpose of framing a charge is to
intimate the accused about the clear, unambiguous and precise nature
of accusation that the accused is called upon to meet in the course of
a trial as observed in V.C. Shukla V State through C.B.I., 1980
Supp SCC 92. The Supreme Court in Union of India V Prafulla
Signing Date:23.07.2024 CRL.M.C. 4643/2019and connected matters Page 45
Kumar Samal & another, (1979) 3 SCC 4 considered scope of
inquiry at the stage of framing of charge observed that the Judge
while considering the question of framing the charges has power to
sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out
whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made
out. The Supreme Court in Onkar Nath Mishra & others V State
(NCT of Delhi) & another, Appeal (Crl.)1716 of 2007 decided on
14.12.2007 regarding framing of charge observed that court at the
stage of framing of charge is not expected to go deep into the
probative value of the material on record and is required to consider
whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been
committed and not a ground for convicting the accused has been
made out. The Supreme Court in Asim Shariff V National
Investigation Agency, (2019) 7 SCC 148 expressed that the trial
court is not expected or supposed to hold a mini trial for the purpose
of marshalling the evidence on record.
19. The petitioners challenged framing of charges primarily on
ground that both FIRs were got registered on basis of similar
allegations which were part of same transactions. There may be some
Signing Date:23.07.2024 CRL.M.C. 4643/2019and connected matters Page 46
overlapping of facts and allegations in both FIRs bearing no 222(28) /
the first FIR registered at PS Khurda and 443/2002 / the second FIR
registered at PS Nangloi but in substance allegations in both FIRs
pertaining to the accused persons implicated therein and subject
matter lands are different and allegations in second FIR bearing no
443/2002 cannot be stated to be part of same transaction basis of the
first FIR bearing no 222(28) and allegations of both FIRs in
substance are different from each other. The second FIR is not in
continuation of the first FIR and there is no sameness in both FIRs in
substance. The second FIR in substance is based upon distinct and
different facts and scope of the trial may be different from trial of the
first FIR. The trial court vide order dated 07.09.2017 rightly observed
that there is sufficient material to frame charge against the accused
Atma Ram Aggarwal, Arvind Aggarwal, Prem Shanker, Gurcharan
Singh, Rajendera, Suresh Mangla, Ranbir Singh and Azad Singh for
the offences punishable under sections 420/467/468/471/120-B IPC
and rightly dismissed applications of the accused Atma Ram
Aggarwal, Arvind Aggarwal, Prem Shankar and Rajendera for
dropping of proceedings. The revisional court in the impugned order
Signing Date:23.07.2024 CRL.M.C. 4643/2019and connected matters Page 47
rightly observed that there is no merit in the contention of the
petitioners regarding double jeopardy, as the accused involved in
both FIRs are different alongwith the case property. The revisional
court on the basis of statement/allegations of the respondent no 2/the
complainant levelled against the accused including the petitioners,
rightly ordered for framing charges against the petitioners and there
is no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the trial court.
There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the
revisional court as well as by the trial court which were passed after
appropriate appreciation of the material on record. The subordinate
courts were justified in observing that the accused involved in both
FIRs are different along with the case property. The charges were
rightly framed by the trial court vide order dated 07.09.2017 and
rightly upheld by the revisional court vide the impugned order. There
is no force in arguments advanced by the counsel for the petitioners
that the revisional court did not appreciate that the respondent no.
2/the complainant has registered the second FIR against the
petitioners based on the same facts as alleged in the first FIR by
adding more accused persons and the revisional court has not
Signing Date:23.07.2024 CRL.M.C. 4643/2019and connected matters Page 48
considered that it was prima facie evident from Cancellation Report
that the second FIR was registered on the same facts as mentioned in
the first FIR by the same complainant/ the respondent no 2 in
connection with the same land. The legal proposition which was laid
down in T. T. Antony V State of Kerala and subsequent decisions is
not applicable in the present petitions under given facts and
circumstances.
20. Accordingly, the present petitions are devoid of merit and hence
dismissed along with pending applications, if any. It is also made
clear that nothing mentioned herein shall be taken as an opinion on
final merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by
any observation made in this order during trial or otherwise.
DR. SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN
(JUDGE)
JULY 19, 2024
J/ABK
Signing Date:23.07.2024 CRL.M.C. 4643/2019and connected matters Page 49
