Allahabad High Court
Taslim Khan vs The State Of U.P. Thru. S.P., ... on 28 February, 2020
Author: Rajeev Singh
Bench: Rajeev Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH Case :- U/S 482/378/407 No. - 8945 of 2019 Reserved Applicant :- Taslim Khan Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P. Thru. S.P., C.B.I./Acb, Lucknow Counsel for Applicant :- Dhirendra Singh Panwar Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.S.G. Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.
1. Heard Shri Dhirendra Singh Panwar, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri S.B. Pandey, learned A.S.G.
2. This application (u/s 482 Cr.P.C.) has been filed by the applicant for quashing the charge-sheet dated 27.07.2018 filed in Criminal Case No.1320 of 2018 under Sections 120 B, 409, 420, 468, 471 I.P.C. and Sections 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (c) & (d) of P.C. Act 1988, Police Station ACB/CBI/Lucknow as well as cognizance order dated 06.08.2018.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been illegally being prosecuted in the present case. The applicant was posted as Block Godown Incharge of Elia Block, District Sitapur since August 2001 to June, 2003 and again he was posted at the same place from the period of 01.04.2004 to 08.10.2004 and some irregularities were found in the distribution of the essential commodities, as a result, some inquiry was conducted under the direction of the State Government by Food Cell and thereafter, FIR was registered as Case No.1324 of 2005 under Section 218, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. and 3/7 Essential Commodities Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Sitapur on 20.08.2005 and the name of applicant find place at serial No.51 in the array of accused. Thereafter, investigation of aforesaid case was transferred to CBI and it was registered as RC No.0062010A0011 under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 218, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 3/7 Essential Commodities Act, read with Section 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (c) & (d) of P.C. Act 1988 on 09.03.2010 and charge-sheet was filed by the Investigating Agency in the aforesaid case.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that another FIR was lodged by the CBI which was registered as RC No.0062010A0013, under Sections 120 B, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. and Section 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of the P.C. Act, 1988 on 06.04.2010 against the unknown officers/officials, transporters and exporters for the irregularities/misappropriation of the food commodity for the period of 2004-2005. He further submitted that second FIR is barred, as the second offence is the continuance of first one. Therefore, the aforesaid second FIR and its consequential proceedings are liable to be quashed.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has also relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T.T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala and others reported in (2001) 6 SCC 181 and submitted that second FIR is not permissible in the eyes of law for the same serious of offence. The relevant portion of the judgment is reads as under:-
27. A just balance between the fundamental rights of the citizens under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution and the expansive power of the police to investigate a cognizable offence has to be struck by the court. There cannot be any controversy that sub-section (8) of Section 173 CrPC empowers the police to make further investigation, obtain further evidence (both oral and documentary) and forward a further report or reports to the Magistrate. In Narang case [(1979) 2 SCC 322 : 1979 SCC (Cri) 479] it was, however, observed that it would be appropriate to conduct further investigation with the permission of the court. However, the sweeping power of investigation does not warrant subjecting a citizen each time to fresh investigation by the police in respect of the same incident, giving rise to one or more cognizable offences, consequent upon filing of successive FIRs whether before or after filing the final report under Section 173(2) CrPC. It would clearly be beyond the purview of Sections 154 and 156 CrPC, nay, a case of abuse of the statutory power of investigation in a given case. In our view a case of fresh investigation based on the second or successive FIRs, not being a counter-case, filed in connection with the same or connected cognizable offence alleged to have been committed in the course of the same transaction and in respect of which pursuant to the first FIR either investigation is under way or final report under Section 173(2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate, may be a fit case for exercise of power under Section 482 CrPC or under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution.
6. Shri S.B. Pandey learned A.S.G. assisted by Shri Ibrahim Kazim, learned counsel for the opposite party and submitted that there is no illegality in the summoning order. Hence, the petition is misconceived. He further submitted that FIR was lodged initially in the year of 2005 by Food Cell of Special Investigation Branch of Government of U.P. and later on looking into the seriousness of the crime and involvement of the officials in the State, the matter referred to the CBI and thereafter, it was registered as FIR No. RC No.0062010A0011 at ACB/CBI, Lucknow and in the aforesaid FIR, the offence period for the year 2000-2003, as incriminating evidences were found against the applicant and he had falsely shown 437.63 quental of wheat and 27.80 quental of rice in the Issue Register of Block Godown. Thereafter, charge-sheet was filed and second FIR RC No.0062010A0013 was lodged for the offence committed by the officials, transporters and exporters for the period of 2004-2005. After about 10 years, he challenged the aforesaid FIR, when the charge-sheet has been filed and he is having statutory remedy before the court below to raise his grievance. He further submitted that decision relied by counsel for the appellant in the case of T.T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala and others (supra) is misread. As the Hon'bel Apex Court held in the aforesaid decision that on the basis of subsequent information in respect of same occurrence/incident, the second FIR is not maintainable but in the present case, the date of occurrance/incident are different. Therefore, the present petition is misconceived and liable to be dismissed.
7. Considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and going through the record. It is found that the FIR was lodged initially by Shri B.M. Pandey-Inspector, Food Cell, Indra Bhawan, Lucknow which was registered as Case No.1324 of 2005 under Section 218, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. and 3/7 Essential Commodities Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Sitapur on 20.08.2005 against the 57 named accused and thereafter, investigation was transferred to CBI and it was registered as RC No.0062010A0011. In the aforesaid FIR, alleged offence of criminal conspiracy, cheating, forgery and criminal misconduct in the year 2000-2003 and CBI also lodged another FIR i.e. RC No.0062010A0013 on 06.04.2010 with the allegation for the period of 2004-2005. As it is evident that in both the First Information Reports, the period of incident are different and in the case of T.T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala and others (supra), it is held that only subsequent information in respect of the same offence will not be registered as FIR but in case, cross version or anther incident, fresh FIR can be registered. Therefore, the present petition is not maintainable.
8. In view of above, the application (u/s 482 Cr.P.C) is misconceived and accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 28.02.2020.
Amit/-