Karnataka High Court
Harsha D vs State By Ramamurthy Nagar on 12 August, 2022
Author: M. Nagaprasanna
Bench: M. Nagaprasanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5277 OF 2022
BETWEEN
HARSHA .D
S/O. LATE DODDANANJIAHA,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
FIRST DIVISIONAL CLERK
RECRUITMENT SECTION,
CID, BANGALORE - 560 001
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SANDESH J. CHOUTA, SR. ADVOCATE
A/W. SRI. ARUN .G., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE BY RAMAMURTHY NAGAR
POLICE STATION
BANGALORE - 560 043
2. SHIVAKUMAR. S
DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT POLICE,
FIU CID, BANGALORE - 560 001
3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
FINANCIAL INTELLIGENCE UNIT (FIU),
CID, BANGALORE - 560 001
4. K.H. DILEEP KUMAR,
INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
FIU CID, BANGALORE - 560 001
2
5. NARASIMHAMURTHY P
DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
FIU CID, BANGALORE - 560 001
6. T.D. SATISH KUMAR
INSPECTOR OF POLICE/ASSISTANT
INVESTIGATION OFFICER, FIU CID,
BANGALORE - 560 001
(REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT COMPLEX
BANGALORE)
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. R. SUBRAMANYA, AAG A/W
SRI. K.S. ABHIJITH, HCGP FOR R-1 AND R-3)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO A. QUASH THE FIR AND COMPLAINT IN
CR.NO.188/2022 FOR ALLEGED OFFENCE U/S 120B, 465, 468,
471, 420 R/W 34 OF IPC REGISTERED BY RESPONDENT
NO.1/RAMAMURTHY NAGAR P.S., BANGALORE ON THE FILE OF
THE X ACMM, BANGALORE.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 14.06.2022, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
The petitioner - accused No.3 calls in question registration of crime in Crime No.188 of 2022 of Ramamurthynagar Police Station registered for offences punishable under Sections 120B, 420, 465, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
3
2. Heard the learned senior counsel Sri Sandesh J.Chouta appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General Sri R.Subramanya representing the State.
3. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition, as borne out from the pleadings are as follows:-
On 9-04-2022, FIR in Crime No.48 of 2022 came to be registered before the Chowk Police Station, Kalaburagi North Sub- Division, on a complaint made by one Police Inspector K.H.Dileep Kumar, FIU, CID, Bangalore. The allegation in the complaint was that for direct recruitment of Police Sub-Inspectors, Government had issued a notification on 21-01-2021 calling for applications from eligible candidates for filling up 545 Police Sub-Inspector posts. It came in public domain that malpractice has shrouded the examination conducted for the appointment resulting in taking away the chances of meritorious candidates. The Government gave a direction to the CID, Bangalore to conduct an inquiry into the public furor. On 8-04-2022 the Police Superintendent, FIU, CID appointed the said Police Inspector K.H.Dileep Kumar to conduct the enquiry. In the enquiry, it was found that one Veeresh whose 4 examination centre was Gnanajyothi English Medium School, Gokulnagar, Kalaburgi had attended set 'A' paper for Paper-II in the PSI Examination. When the said paper was sent for evaluation to the recruitment section it was found that its Optical Mark Recognition ('OMR' for short) was tampered. Though the candidate had attended only 21 questions out of 100 objective type questions he had been awarded 120 marks. In this back ground on unearthing discrepancies during the enquiry, an FIR came to be registered in Crime No.48 of 2022 for offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 120B r/w 34 of the IPC. Upon registration of the crime, several accused were arrested and the case was transferred to CID for the purpose of investigation where investigation is pending.
4. On 30-04-2022 a second FIR is registered in Crime No.60 of 2022 before the High Grounds Police Station, Bangalore on a complaint given by respondent No.5, Deputy Superintendent of Police, FIU, CID. The narration in the complaint is similar to what was narrated in Crime No.48 of 2022. Investigation was carried out by the CID and the product of investigation was 172 candidates 5 were provisionally selected to be the real culprits in the selection process. Out of 172 candidates except 4 candidates all other candidates had produced fake hall tickets which were seized under a panchanama. Since discrepancy in the original OMR sheet and the carbon OMR sheet was found, the same was sent for examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory ('FSL' for short). The candidates who had conspired with middlemen and others to get appointments through malpractices were seen to be the culprits in tampering of OMR sheets. Nine candidates in particular, out of 22, were held to be responsible and all the 9 candidates who appeared before the CID Police were arrested. The petitioner herein was named as accused No.29. Therefore, the petitioner became an accused for the first time in Crime No.60 of 2022.
5. Thereafter, the Police registered another crime in Crime No.188 of 2022 on a complaint made by the 2nd respondent/ Deputy Superintendent of Police, FIU, CID. In the complaint it is alleged that the complainant who was a part of the investigating team in Crime No.48 of 2022 concerning 172 candidates who were the product of investigation in Crime No.60 of 2022 and the 6 allegation also was of tampering of hall tickets. The documents so found in the alleged investigation were also sent for a second FSL report. Crime No.188 of 2022 is the third in the line of registration of crime on the same subject. On registration of crime in Crime No.188 of 2022, an application was filed by the Police before the learned Magistrate seeking police custody of the accused No.1 for a period of 14 days. In the said application one Manojkumar, accused No.2 and accused No.3, the petitioner herein were shown to be absconding. Therefore, accused No.1 was handed over to Police custody.
6. On 5-06-2022 a fourth FIR is registered on the very same subject matter and on the very same fact in Crime No.171 of 2022. The only change in this FIR is that the second FSL report had confirmed discrepancies, thereby prima facie showing malpractice and the candidate cited in the complaint was one Darshan Gowda. A remand application was taken up on the very day and a week's time was granted to the petitioner's family and it was also intimated that he would be taken to Police custody in Crime No.188 of 2022. It is at that juncture the petitioner has knocked the doors of this Court 7 in the subject petition. This Court by its order dated 10-06-2022 had directed the respondents/Police not to seek Police Custody of the petitioner who is already in custody concerning Crime No.60 of 2022.
7. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would make one solitary submission that registration of multiple FIRs on the same subject matter by different complainants who are all policemen by themselves and officers of the investigating team who have resorted to registration of separate FIRs is hit by several judgments of the Apex Court. He would place reliance on the following judgments of the Apex Court: (i) T.T.ANTONY v. STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS - (2001) 6 SCC 181; (ii) UPKAR SINGH v. VED PRAKASH AND OTHERS - (2004) 13 SCC 292;
(iii) BABUBHAI v. STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS - (2010) 12 SCC 254; (iv) SURENDER KAUSHIK AND OTHERS .v STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS - (2013) 5 SCC 148; (v) ANJU CHAUDHARY v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER - (2013) 6 SCC 384; (vi) P.SREEKUMAR v. STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS - (2018)4 SCC 579; (vii) ARNAB 8 RANJAN GOSWAMI v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS -
(2020) 14 SCC 12; and (viii) KRISHNA LAL CHAWLA v. STATE OF U.P. - (2021) 5 SCC 435. The contention of the learned senior counsel is that the complainants can become witnesses and all the contents of multiple FIRs can be alleged in one FIR and proceedings can go on in one, as registration of multiple FIRs would violate fundamental right of the petitioner, who is the sole accused.
8. On the other hand, the learned Additional Advocate General would refute the submissions and contends that wherever the allegation against the petitioner is found in the respective jurisdictions, FIR is registered in those jurisdictional limits at the respective police stations and as such, no fault can be found with the registration of multiple FIRs, since the complainants are entirely different and what is unearthed during the investigation is at different police stations and all of them are pending investigation.
9. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, in reply, would clarify that all the FIRs registered concern one examination - PSI recruitment examination. All the FIRs registered take note of 172 candidates. Therefore, that forms the chunk of 9 allegation. That forming chunk of allegation cannot become repetition of FIRs merely because different officers of investigating team had found different materials at different places. All of them can become a part of the charge sheet if filed in one of the crimes that are registered. Charges can be added, accused can be added and witnesses also can be added in accordance with law. Therefore, he would submit that registration of multiple FIRs on the same incident is hit by doctrine of sameness.
10. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned senior counsel and the learned Additional Advocate General and perused the material on record.
11. The afore-narrated facts link in the chain of the crimes registered, are not reiterated. What is to be noticed is the prayer sought by the petitioner and is extracted for the purpose of quick reference. The prayer reads as follows:
"I. to quash the FIR and complaint in Crime No.188/2022 for alleged offence under Sec., 120B, 465, 468, 471, 420 R/w.34 of Indian Penal Code registered by Respondent No.1/Ramamurthynagar Police Station, 10 Bangalore, on the file of Hon'ble X Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Bangalore."
What can be gathered from afore-quoted prayer is that, the petitioner seeks quashment of FIR and complaint in crime No.188/2022 registered under Sections 120B, 465, 468, 471, 420 R/w.34 of IPC, in which the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.1. The other crime in crime No.48/2022 is registered at Kalaburagi albeit on the same issue of fraud in recruitment. The petitioner is not the accused in the said crime. A crime registered on 30.04.2022 is also appended to the petition, which would also depict that the petitioner is not an accused initially in the said crime but later he is added as accused No.29, while seeking remand of the petitioner. Crime No.171/2022 is again registered in which the petitioner is not the accused. These crimes are registered by the police in different stations where during investigation, different accused and victims emerge. Since the petitioner seeks quashment of only crime No.188/2022, it cannot be said that the registration of a FIR in Crime No.60/2022 would be hit by doctrine of sameness in the light of the petitioner being an accused in the said case as well. There can be no qualm with regard to the law laid down by the 11 Apex Court or by this Court in the judgments cited by the learned senior counsel. But, in the light of the prayer that is sought by the petitioner in the subject petition, all those judgments would become inapplicable to what is sought.
12. Finding no merit in the petition, the petition stands dismissed.
Consequently, I.A.No.1/2022 also stands disposed.
Sd/-
JUDGE bkp CT:MJ