Uttarakhand High Court
Heena Thapa vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 14 March, 2024
Author: Vivek Bharti Sharma
Bench: Vivek Bharti Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
C482 No.316 of 2024
Heena Thapa ...... Applicant
Vs.
Central Bureau of Investigation ..... Respondent
Present:
Mr. Devadatt Kamat, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Navneet
Kaushik, Mr. Abhimanshu Dhyani, Mr. Kunal Singh and Mr. Sahil Modi,
learned counsel for the petitioner
Mr. V.K. Kapruwan, learned counsel for the CBI.
Date of Order: 14.03.2024
Hon'ble Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.
By means of present C482 petition, petitioner
seeks to quash the order dated 22.01.2024 passed by
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Dehradun in
Criminal Case No.01 of 2024 "CBI vs. Sudhir Kumar
Windlass & Ors." and the common charge sheet dated
28.12.2024 filed by the respondent-CBI in the said case.
2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
petitioner/accused would submit the present petition has
been filed with limited prayer to challenge the clubbing of
two distinct FIRS in a single charge-sheet by the
respondent-CBI.
3. He would submit that admittedly in the instant
case two FIRs were filed being FIR No.13 of 2022 dated
09.01.2022 (RC00720023S0002) and FIR No.31 of 2022
dated 25.01.2022 (RC0072023S0004); that, a bare reading
of two FIRs would show that while first FIR i.e. RC No.002
relates to an alleged incident of impersonation in execution
of sale deed dated 18.05.2010, the second FIR i.e. RC
No.004 pertains to another sale deed dated 09.06.2021;
that, the petitioner is arrayed as Accused No.13 in this
second FIR RC004 and has nothing to do with RC002,
however, respondent-CBI has filed a common charge-sheet
in two distinct FIRs despite the fact that the alleged
offences are distinct by virtue of different set of accused
persons and the incidents of commission of offence are
also different.
4. To buttress his submissions, learned Senior
Counsel would refer the case of "T.T. Antony vs. State of
Kerala (2001) 6 SCC 181" and would submit that the law
propounded in this judgment prohibits culminating the
investigations of two different FIRs in a single charge
sheet.
5. Learned Senior counsel would further place
reliance upon a judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High
Court in re "State of Karnataka vs. Greenbuds Agro
Form Ltd. (2021) SCC Online Kar 12475" wherein the
Division Bench of said Court held that filing a common
charge-sheet for the various crime registered in different
Police Stations is impermissible.
6. Learned Senior Counsel would further place
reliance on the judgment in "State of U.P. vs. Singhara
Singh, 1963 SCC Online SC 23" and would submit that
if a statute has conferred a power to do an act and has laid
down the method in which that power has to be exercised,
it necessarily prohibits the doing of the act in any other
manner than that which has been prescribed.
7. He would also refer "J. Jayalalithaa vs. State
of Karnataka (2014) 2 SCC 401" which says that where
a statute requires to do a certain thing in a certain way the
thing must be done in that way and not contrary to it at
all. Other methods or mode of performance are impliedly
and necessarily forbidden.
8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for
respondent-CBI would submit that the original crime/FIR
No.13/2022, P.S. Rajpur Dehradun was registered on
09.01.2022 u/s 120-B r/w 420, 467, 468, 471 and 506
IPC on the basis of written complaint of Sanjay Singh
against the accused persons Sudhir Kumar Windlass and
Ravi Dayal alleging that Sudhir Kumar Windlass in
criminal conspiracy with his employee Ravi Dayal got a
false sale deed dated 18.05.2010 registered in favour of
Ravi Dayal at the Sub Registrar Office, Dehradun
pertaining to their land khasra no.222/1 Min (New khasra
no.413 Ä, 434 Ä, 436 [k) at Village Mauja Johari,
Dehradun wherein they did not sell the said land. The
parties and the witnesses in the sale deed were either
employees of Sudhir Windlass or their family members.
Further, Ajay Singh, brother of the complainant who was
shown as a seller in the sale deed had already passed
away. Subsequently, the said sale deed was got cancelled
by the accused persons from the Civil Court, Dehradun.
9. Learned counsel for CBI would further submit
that another FIR No.31/2022 was registered for the same
offences by the same complainant i.e. Sanjay Singh with
allegations that, as mentioned in the first FIR, that
accused Sudhir Kumar Windlass entered into a criminal
conspiracy with other co-accused persons including the
present petitioner Heena Thapa and in furtherance of this
conspiracy a sale deed was prepared and registered on
09.06.2021 of the same land i.e. khasra No.222/1
notwithstanding the fact that this land had already been
sold by Late Gangbahadur to one Smt. Usha Gupta vide
sale deed dated 22.11.1983; that, the present
petitioner/accused was an employee of the main accused
Sudhir Kumar Windlass.
10. He would further submit that the allegations in
both the FIRs are of similar nature that the main accused
Sudhir Kumar Windlass with other co-accused persons
including the present petitioner, who were actually the
relative and employees of Sudhir Kumar Windlass, has
conspired to illegally capture and grab the land of the
complainant and his family. He would further submit that
the land in question is the same, the complainant/victim
is the same, majority of the prosecution evidences, both
documentary and oral are also common, therefore, in the
interest of justice and to avoid multiplicity of litigation
after investigation a common charge-sheet has been filed.
He would further submit that filing a common charge-
sheet shall not cause any prejudice to either party rather
all will be benefitted by the same.
11. To bolster his submissions, learned counsel for
CBI would place reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in re "Balbir vs. State of Haryana, AIR
(2000) 1 SCC 285" and "Anju Chaudhary vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh and another (2013) 6 SCC 384".
12. Heard submissions of learned counsel for the
respective parties and perused the material available on
record.
13. From the perusal of record, it is abundantly clear
that the complainant/victim of both the FIRs is one and the
same and the land in question is also the same. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court in re "C. Muniapppan and others vs. State of
Tamil Nadu (2010) 9 SCC 567" has held in para-37 as
under:-
"37. The submission on behalf of the appellants that two
crimes bearing Nos.188 and 190 of 2000 could not be
clubbed together, has also no merit for the simple reason
that if the cases are considered, keeping in view the totality
of the circumstances and the sequence in which the two
incidents occurred, taking into consideration the evidence of
drivers and conductors/cleaners of the vehicles involved in
the first incident and the evidence of C. Ramasundaram,
VAO (PW 87) we reach the inescapable conclusion that the
second occurrence was nothing but a fall out of the first
occurrence. The damage caused to the public transport
vehicles and the consequential burning of the University bus
remained part of one and the same incident. Merely
because two separate complaints had been lodged, did not
mean that they could not be clubbed together and one
charge-sheet could not be filed."
14. In view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme
Court in C. Muniappan case (supra), it is not always the
case that two distinct FIRs cannot be clubbed and after
investigation single charge-sheet cannot be filed. In
considered view of this Court and if the cases are considered
keeping in view the totality of the circumstances and the
sequence in which the two incidents occurred, taking into
consideration the evidence involved in the first FIR and the
evidence in second FIR this Court is of the inescapable
conclusion that the second occurrence was nothing but a fall
out of the first occurrence. The complainant/victim, majority
of the accused persons, evidences to be led to prove the case
of the prosecution against the accused persons are all
identical and the same. In such circumstances, there is
nothing illegal in filing one single charge-sheet for two
separate FIRs.
15. Insofar as the case of T.T. Antony (supra) is
concerned, the same is not applicable to the present facts
and circumstances of the case. The law settled in this
judgment is 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 is pertinent to
mention that in later judgment in re C. Muniappan (supra),
Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down that common charge-
sheet can be filed.
16. As regards to the law propounded in Singhara
Singh (supra) and J. Jayalalithaa (supra), it is nothing
but reiteration of law that if a statute provides for a thing
to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done
in that manner and in no other manner, following some
other course is not permissible. In the present case, the
Investigating Agency after registration of the FIRs,
conducted investigations and on the basis of evidence
collected, has filed a common charge-sheet in respect of
these two FIRs just to secure the ends of justice and also
to save the time of justice dispensation machinery as well
as to avoid the multiplicity of proceedings.
17. It is settled law that inherent powers under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. can be exercised to secure ends of
justice, prevent abuse of the process of any court and to
make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any
order under this Code, depending upon the facts of a given
case. The court can always take note of any miscarriage of
justice and prevent the same by exercising its powers u/s
482 of Cr.P.C. However, such inherent powers are to be
exercised sparingly and with caution.
In the considered opinion of this Court, there is
neither abuse of the process of law nor any miscarriage
caused to the petitioner by filing of single charge-sheet for
two FIRs.
18. In view of the foregoing discussion, there is no
merit in the present C482 petition. Same is hereby
dismissed in limine.
(Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.)
14.03.2024
Rajni
