A. Krishna Kishore vs The State Of Telangana
2021 Latest Caselaw 1463 Tel

             HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

               CRIMINAL PETITION No.7241 OF 2019

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., is filed to

quash the proceedings in Crime No.214 of 2019 on the file of

Saroornagar Police Station, Saroornagar. The petitioner herein is accused

No.1 in the said crime. The offences alleged against the petitioner are

under Sections 406, 420, 468, 471, 506 read with 120-B IPC.

2. The allegations against the petitioner herein, as per the complaint

under Section 200 Cr.P.C, are as follows:-

The family of the 2nd respondent-complainant got acquaintance

with accused No.2, who styles himself to be a Journalist and closely

associated with prominent personalities in Bharatiya Janata Party, a

National party. With the said acquaintance, accused No.2 used to visit

the house of the 2nd respondent-complainant. In November, 2015,

accused No.2 approached the 2nd respondent-complainant and her

husband and informed them that he knows the petitioner herein-accused

No.1 and the petitioner-accused No.1 is having close contacts with high

profile BJP Leaders and he is the shadow of accused No.8, who is the

National General Secretary of BJP. Thus, accused No.2 has influenced

the complainant and her husband stating that accused No.1 is capable of

getting a nominated post in any of the Departments of the Central

Government, provided the complainant and her husband spend some

amount. Once again, accused No.2, along with accused No.1

accompanied by accused No.3 and another person, approached the 2nd

respondent-complainant and her husband and pressurized them to

accept their proposal by making false promises that they would be able

to procure a nominated membership of Pharmaexil, which functions

under the control of Ministry of Commerce and Industries, Government

of India.

KL,J Crl.P.No.7241 of 2019

3. Accused Nos.1 to 3 have created Mail IDs in the name of the

husband of the 2nd respondent-complainant with the active help and

assistance of accused No.9. Accused Nos.1 to 3 have informed the 2nd

respondent and her husband that the said profile has already been sent

to the Commerce and Industries Ministry, so as to get the approval from

Smt.Nirmala Sitaraman, the then Central Minister for Commerce and

Industries Department, for appointment of the 2nd respondent's husband

in the nominated post in Pharmaexil. The petitioner-accused No.1 again

approached the 2nd respondent-complainant and her husband and

provided a xerox copy of a letter and informed that Smt.Nirmala

Sitaraman, being the then Minister looking after the affairs of Commerce

and Industries Department, has recommended the name of the husband

of the 2nd respondent for appointment as Chairperson of Pharmaexil.

While handing over the said xerox copy of the letter, the petitioner-

accused No.1 had informed the complainant and her husband that he

had received the said letter through Fax from the office of the said

Ministry of Commerce and Industries. Thus, the 2nd respondent-

complainant and her husband, who innocently believed the version of

accused Nos.1 to 3, were induced to part with initial sum of Rs.1.00

crore on 29.12.2015. Subsequently, accused Nos.1 to 3 have collected

the remaining amount of Rs.45,00,000/- on 04.01.2016 by deputing

accused No.5, a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- on 14.01.2016 by deputing

accused No.6, Rs.25,00,000/- on 15.02.2016 by deputing accused No.5

and a sum of Rs.22,00,000/- on 05.04.2016 by deputing accused No.7.

In all, the 2nd respondent and her husband have paid Rs.2,17,00,000/-

from 29.12.2015 till 05.04.2016 to accused Nos.1 to 3 and 5 to 7.

Accused Nos.1 to 3, 5 and accused Nos.5 to 7 and 9, who are close

associates of accused No.3, with the active connivance of accused No.8,

induced the 2nd respondent-complainant and her husband by showing a

xerox copy of the letter purportedly signed by Smt.Nirmala Sitaraman

KL,J Crl.P.No.7241 of 2019

and thereby took huge amount of Rs.2,17,00,000/- from the 2nd

respondent-complainant and her husband under the pretext that the

complainant's husband will be appointed as Chairperson of Pharmaexil.

4. Thereafter, whenever the complainant and her husband

approached accused Nos.1 to 3, they used to take various excuses for the

delay and made them to believe that the husband of the complainant

would get appointment letter for the nominated post of Chairperson of

Pharmaexil. Despite lapse of months together, there was absolutely no

response from accused Nos.1 to 3 for which the complainant and her

husband were forced to run from pillar to post to atleast get back their

money. The efforts made by the 2nd respondent and her husband to get

back their money became a futile exercise.

5. On coming to know that the complainant and her husband were

taking steps to initiate necessary action against the accused, accused

Nos.1 to 3 and 8 have deputed accused No.4, who is a politician and

leader of BJP, to negotiate and settle the issue with the complainant and

her husband. Accused No.4 had promised them that the money will be

returned to them and further requested not to propagate the issue, as

the same will cause harm to the Central Government as well as the

Party. To make the complainant and her husband to believe the version

of the accused No.4, accused No.1 had given a written undertaking on

26.07.2016 in which he has specifically confessed his guilt and taking

the amount from the complainant's husband and while issuing the

cheques in the name of one Mr.M.Raju, accused No.1 had promised that

he would return a sum of Rs.2,05,00,000/- to the husband of the

complainant on 10.08.2016 and will take back the cheques issued by

him. Accused No.1 has also promised that if he fails to pay the amount,

he will see that accused No.3 will pay the amount, as accused No.3 had

agreed to give an amount of Rs.3.00 crores against the amount taken

from the complainant and her husband. By giving the said written

KL,J Crl.P.No.7241 of 2019

undertaking, the accused have further induced the complainant and her

husband and they have even failed to honour the said undertaking and

have cheated the complainant and her husband. Thus, accused No.1

failed to keep up his promise given under the said undertaking dated

26.07.2016. On the other hand, accused No.4 threatened the

complainant and her husband that accused No.8 would cause troubles

to them.

6. The entire issue has been telecasted in electronic media on

24.08.2016. In the second week of September, 2016, the complainant

and her husband received a notice from the office of Assistant

Commissioner of Police, Old Kothwal Building, Daryagunj, Delhi,

whereby they were directed to appear before the Inspector of Police on

19.09.2016 at 5:00 PM with regard to investigation in FIR.No.159 of

2016 registered for the offences under Sections 420, 468, 471 and

Section 120-B of IPC with P.S. Crime Branch, Delhi, for providing

documents and to join investigation. Accordingly, the complainant

approached the said Police Station, where he was informed that they

have received a complaint against the petitioner-accused No.1 and

accused No.3 alleging that they have forged the signatures of

Smt.Nirmala Sitaraman and fabricated a letter purportedly issued from

the office of Ministry of Commerce and Industries, New Delhi and was

asked to provide the particulars of the said forged and fabricated

document. Accordingly, the complainant and her husband have handed

over the said forged and fabricated letter and informed about the

criminal acts done by the accused.

7. During the course of investigation, accused Nos.1 and 2 were also

taken into custody by the said police. The petitioner-accused No.1 had

confessed the illegal and criminal acts committed by him in collusion

with other accused. Thus, the petitioner-accused No.1 along with all

other accused have cheated the 2nd respondent and her husband by

KL,J Crl.P.No.7241 of 2019

forging the signature of the then Central Minister, Smt. Niramala

Sitaraman and also induced them to part with an amount of

Rs.2,17,00,000/-.

8. The said complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C filed by the 2nd

respondent was referred to the police by the learned Magistrate under

Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and the police, Saroornagar Police Station, in

turn, have registered a case in Crime No.214 of 2019 against the

petitioner herein and the other accused for the aforesaid offences.

9. Referring to the contents of the complaint, Sri P. Ponna Rao,

learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the contents of the

complaint lack the ingredients of offences alleged against the petitioner

herein. The 2nd respondent and her husband together also filed a Suit

against the petitioner herein, A.2 and A.3 and one Mr.M. Raju for

recovery of an amount of Rs.3,17,10,000/-. The said suit is pending.

The allegations made in the said complaint filed under Section 200

Cr.P.C. are contrary to the allegations made by the 2nd respondent in the

said Suit. Learned counsel would further submit that on a complaint

lodged by one Mr. G. Bhanu Prakash Reddy, a leader of BJP from

Tirupati, P.S.Alipiri, Tirupati Urban have registered a case in Crime

No.181 of 2016 for the offences under Sections 420 and 468 of IPC

against the petitioner herein and others. The said crime is also pending.

Further, on a complaint lodged by one Mr. Sunil Kumar, an employee of

Ministry of Commerce and Industries, Department of Commerce,

Government of India, P.S.Crime Branch, Delhi have registered a case in

Crime No.159 of 2016 for the offences under Sections 420, 468, 471 and

120-B of IPC against the petitioner herein and others. The said crime is

also pending. In the said crime, the 2nd respondent has appeared before

the Delhi Police. By referring to the contents of the above said three

FIRs, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that with regard to

the very same incident, on the very same allegations, registration of

KL,J Crl.P.No.7241 of 2019

Multiple FIRs is not permissible. In support of his contention, he has

placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases

of T.T.Antony vs State Of Kerala & Ors1, Surender Kaushik vs.

State of Uttar Pradesh and others2, Arnab Ranjan Goswami v. Union

of India3 and Akbaruddin Owaisi Vs.State of AP4. By referring to the

guidelines issued by the Apex Court in State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan

Lal5, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that registration of

a third crime i.e Crime No.214 of 2014 by P.S. Saroornagar at the

instance of the 2nd respondent against the petitioner herein is an abuse

of process of law and therefore, it has to be quashed by this Court by

invoking its inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. With the said

contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner sought to quash the

proceedings in Crime No.214 of 2019.

10. On the other hand, Sri Kiran Palakurthi, learned counsel

appearing for the 2nd respondent would submit that the 2nd respondent-

complainant is the aggrieved party. The allegations in the above said two

crimes i.e Crime Ns.181 of 2016 and 159 of 2016 are different. The 2nd

respondent has nothing to do with the said crimes. There is a specific

allegation against the petitioner herein and other accused that they have

induced the 2nd respondent and her husband that they will get an

appointment of Chairperson of Pharmaexil to the husband of the 2nd

respondent and accordingly, they have furnished a xerox copy of the said

order said to have been signed by Smt.Nirmala Sitaraman, the then

Central Minster for Commerce and Industries, Government of India.

Under the said promise, they have taken huge amount of

Rs.2,17,00,000/- from the 2nd respondent and the details of the same are

also specifically mentioned in the complaint filed under Section 200

2001(6) SCC 181

(2013) 5 SCC 148

. AIR 2020 SC (Criminal) 948

(2013) 6 ALT 101

1992 AIR 604

KL,J Crl.P.No.7241 of 2019

Cr.P.C. Thus, there are specific allegations against the petitioner herein.

The matter is at the investigation stage. Merely because the suit is

pending, the proceedings in Crime No.214 of 2019 cannot be quashed

and the investigation cannot be interdicted by this Court. He has placed

reliance on the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the

case of M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd vs. State of

Maharashtra6. He further submits that there is no contradiction in the

versions of the 2nd respondent. The petitioner herein, instead of

cooperating with the investigation, filed the present petition to quash the

proceedings itself. With the said submissions, learned counsel for the

2nd respondent sought to dismiss the present petition.

11. Learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, would submit that the

matter is at the investigation stage. Since the punishment for the

offences alleged against the petitioner is seven years and below seven

years, the Investigating Officer has recorded the statements of five

witnesses. There are specific allegations against the petitioner herein.

The police have registered the above said crime on the reference made by

the learned Magistrate on a complaint filed by the 2nd respondent under

Section 200 Cr.P.C. The present case will not fall under the exceptions

laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana

supra. With the said submission, learned Public Prosecutor sought to

dismiss the present petition.

12. The above said facts would reveal that according to the 2nd

respondent-complainant, the petitioner-accused No.1 in active

connivance with other accused has induced the 2nd respondent and her

husband that they will provide a nominated post of Chairperson of

Pharmaexil to the husband of the 2nd respondent and under the said

promise, they have taken a huge amount of Rs.2,17,00,000/-. The

details of payments etc., are specifically mentioned in the complaint.

2021 Law Suit (SC) 272

KL,J Crl.P.No.7241 of 2019

They have also furnished a xerox copy of appointment letter said to have

been signed by Smt.Nirmala Sitaraman, the then Hon'ble Central

Minister. On enquiry, the 2nd respondent came to know that the accused

have created the said appointment letter by forging the signature of the

Central Minister. The said fact was admitted by the petitioner-accused

No.1. According to the 2nd respondent, the petitioner/accused No.1 has

admitted his guilt and agreed to return the said amount. He has sent

accused No.4 to the 2nd respondent-complainant and her husband for

negotiations and the petitioner-accused No.1 had given a written

undertaking on 26.07.2016 in which he has specifically confessed his

guilt and taking the amount from the complainant's husband and while

issuing the cheques in the name of one Mr.M.Raju, he had promised that

he would return a sum of Rs.2,05,00,000/-. Though in the list of

documents appended to the said complaint filed by the 2nd respondent

under Section 200 Cr.P.C, it is mentioned about the undertaking dated

26.07.2016 and the MOU entered by the accused dated 16.09.2016, they

have not filed copies of the same before this Court. Even learned counsel

for the 2nd respondent did not file a copy of the same before this Court.

One more undertaking dated 30.05.2016 was also mentioned in the said

list said to have been submitted by accused No.1. The same has also not

been filed before this Court. The above said Suit filed by the 2nd

respondent and her husband against the petitioner herein-accused No.1

and others for recovery of an amount of Rs.3,17,10,000/- is pending.

The allegations are almost same. Thus, there are several factual aspects

to be investigated into by the Investigating Officer during the course of

investigation. Whether there is any contradiction in the allegations made

by the 2nd respondent against the petitioner herein-accused No.1 and

other accused is again a factual aspect to be investigated by the

Investigating Officer. With regard to payments said to have been made by

the 2nd respondent and her husband to the petitioner-accused No.1 and

KL,J Crl.P.No.7241 of 2019

other accused again is a matter to be investigated into by the

Investigating Officer. Whether the signature of Smt.Nirmala Sitaraman

was forged on the appointment letter said to have been issued by the

Central Minister is a matter to be investigated into by the Investigating

officer after obtaining FSL Report.

13. Admittedly, the above said two crimes, i.e Crime No.181 of 2016

and Crime No.159 of 2016 are pending against the petitioner herein.

Crime No.181 of 2016 was registered on the complaint lodged by a

Leader of BJP from Tirupati. Whether he is an aggrieved party or not

and the allegations made by him are true or not is again a factual aspect

to be investigated by the Investigating Officer. Likewise, Crime No.159 of

2016 registered by the Crime Branch, Delhi Police Station on the

complaint lodged by an employee of the Ministry of Commerce and

Industries, Government of India and the allegations therein are again

matters to be investigated into by the Investigating Officer. A perusal of

the complaints in all the above said three crimes reveals that there are

different versions. Complainants are different. Therefore, the contention

of learned counsel for the petitioner that on the very same allegations,

with regard to the very same issue, registration of multiple FIRs is not

permissible is not sustainable.

14. The Hon'ble Apex Court in T.T.Antony's case (1 supra)

categorically held that FIR is an important document. It sets the

criminal law into motion and marks the commencement of the

investigation which ends up with the formation of opinion under Section

169 or Section 170 of Cr.P.C., as the case may be, and forwarding of a

police report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. It is quite possible and it

happens not infrequently that more informations than one are given to a

police officer in charge of a police station in respect of the same incident

involving one or more than one cognizable offences. In such a case, he

need not enter every one of them in the station house diary and this is

KL,J Crl.P.No.7241 of 2019

implied in Section 154 of Cr.P.C. Apart from a vague information by a

phone call or a cryptic telegram, the information first entered in the

station house diary, kept for this purpose, by a police officer in charge of

a police station is the First Information Report-F.I.R. postulated

by Section 154 of Cr.P.C. All other informations made orally or in writing

after the commencement of the investigation into the cognizable offence

disclosed from the facts mentioned in the First Information Report and

entered in the station house diary by the police officer or such other

cognizable offences as may come to his notice during the investigation,

will be statements falling under Section 162 of Cr.P.C. No such

information/statement can properly be treated as an F.I.R. and entered

in the station house diary again, as it would in effect be a second FIR

and the same cannot be in conformity with the scheme of the Cr.P.C

15. The Hon'ble Apex Court in another judgment in Surender

Kaushik's case (2 supra) by referring to the principle laid down by it in

T.T.Antony's case (1 supra) and other judgments held that it is quite

luminous that the lodgment of two FIRs is not permissible in respect of

one and the same incident. The concept of sameness has been given a

restricted meaning. It does not encompass filing of a counter FIR relating

to the same or connected cognizable offence. What is prohibited is any

further complaint by the same complainant and others against the same

accused subsequent to the registration of the case under the Code of

Criminal Procedure, for an investigation in that regard would have

already commenced and allowing registration of further complaint would

amount to an improvement of the facts mentioned in the original

complaint. The Hon'ble Apex Court further held that as is further made

clear by the three-Judge Bench in Upkar Singh vs. Ved Prakash and

others7, the prohibition does not cover the allegations made by the

accused in the first FIR alleging a different version of the same incident.

2004(13) SCC 292

KL,J Crl.P.No.7241 of 2019

Thus, rival versions in respect of the same incident do take different

shapes and in that event, lodgment of two FIRs is permissible. Thus, the

Hon'ble Apex Court categorically held that when there are two rival

versions in respect of the same episode, they would normally take the

shape of two different FIRs and investigation can be carried on under

both of them by the same investigating agency. In Akbaruddin Owaisi

(supra), registration of multiple FIRs in the same police station for the

same occurrence/incident, barred under Section 154(1) of Cr.P.C. and

non-application rule against registration of two FIRs for the same

occurrence/incident was also dismissed and parameters were laid down.

16. As discussed supra, the versions in Crime No.181 of 2016 and

Crime No.159 of 2016 are different. According to the 2nd respondent, she

is the aggrieved party and she has paid the above said huge amount of

Rs.2,17,00,000/- to the petitioner-accused No.1 and others. Therefore,

in view of the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Surender

Kaushik's case (2 supra), since the versions are different, the

investigation in Crime No.214 of 2019 is permissible. In view of the

same, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that there

cannot be multiple FIRs with regard to the same incident is not

sustainable.

17. According to learned Public Prosecutor, since the punishment for

the offences alleged against the petitioner and others is seven years and

below seven years, the Investigating Officer has already invoked the

procedure laid down under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C and served notice on

the petitioner-accused No.1 herein. The investigating Officer has already

recorded statements of five witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C.

18. As discussed supra, there are several factual aspects which are

required to be investigated by the Investigating Officer during the course

of investigation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kamal

KL,J Crl.P.No.7241 of 2019

Shivaji Pokarnekar vs. The State of Maharashtra8 has categorically

held that quashing criminal proceedings was called for only in a case

where complaint did not disclose any offence, or was frivolous, vexatious,

or oppressive. If allegations set out in complaint did not constitute

offence of which cognizance had been taken by Magistrate, it was open to

High Court to quash same. It was not necessary that, a meticulous

analysis of case should be done before trial to find out whether case

would end in conviction or acquittal. If it appeared on a reading of

complaint and consideration of allegations therein, in light of the

statement made on oath that the ingredients of the offence are disclosed,

there would be no justification for High Court to interfere. The defences

that might be available, or facts/aspects which when established during

trial, might lead to acquittal, were not grounds for quashing complaint at

threshold. At that stage, only question relevant was whether averments

in complaint spell out ingredients of a criminal offence or not. The Court

has to consider whether complaint discloses that prima facie, offences

that were alleged against Respondents. Correctness or otherwise of said

allegations had to be decided only in trial. At initial stage of issuance of

process, it was not open to Courts to stifle proceedings by entering into

merits of the contentions made on behalf of Accused. Criminal

complaints could not be quashed only on ground that, allegations made

therein appear to be of a civil nature. If ingredients of offence alleged

against Accused were prima facie made out in complaint, criminal

proceeding shall not be interdicted.

19. The Hon'ble Apex Court in M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt.

Ltd's case (3 supra) laid down certain conclusions with regard to

quashing of FIR by High Courts by invoking its inherent powers under

Section 482 Cr.P.C. or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In

. AIR 2019 SC 847

KL,J Crl.P.No.7241 of 2019

the said conclusions, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the power under

Section 482 Cr.P.C is very wide but conferment of wide power requires

the Court to be more cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent

duty on the Court. However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit,

regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint

imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid down by this

Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur vs. State of Punjab9 and State of

Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal10, has the jurisdiction to quash the

FIR/complaint. The Court is not required to consider on merits whether

the allegations make out a cognizable offence or not and the court has to

permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in

the FIR.

20. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kamal

Shivaji Pokarnekar's case (5 supra) and M/s. Neeharika

Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd's case (3 supra), merely because there is a suit

pending, the proceedings in Crime No.214 of 2019 cannot be interdicted.

Prima facie, there are specific allegations against the petitioner herein.

The role played by the petitioner herein in commission of offence is also

specifically mentioned by the 2nd respondent in the complaint filed by her

under Section 200 Cr.P.C. In view of the same, this Court is not inclined

to quash the proceedings in Crime No.214 of 2019. The petitioner failed

to make out any case to quash the said proceedings before this Court in

exercise of its powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

21. However, considering the submissions of the learned Public

Prosecutor that since the punishment prescribed for the offences alleged

against the petitioner is seven years and below seven years, the

Investigating Officer has already invoked the procedure laid down under

Section 41-A of Cr.P.C, this Criminal Petition is disposed of directing the

AIR 1960 SC 806

1992 Supp(1) SCC 335

KL,J Crl.P.No.7241 of 2019

Investigating Officer in Crime No.214 of 2019 pending on the file of P.S.

Saroornagar to strictly follow the procedure laid down in Section 41-A of

Cr.P.C ad also guidelines issued by the Apex Court in the case of Arnesh

Kumar v. State of Bihar and another11. The petitioner shall cooperate

the Investigating Officer by furnishing the information and documents as

sought by him in concluding the investigation.

22. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall

stand closed.

__________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J

Date: 01-06-2021.

JSU/vvr

(2014) 8 SCC 273