Bombay High Court
Vedprakash Alias Appu S/O. Chandiram ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. Police ... on 5 September, 2017
Author: Vasanti A Naik
Bench: Vasanti A Naik, M.G. Giratkar
APL 501/17 1 Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) No. 501/2017
1. Vedprakash alias Appu S/o Chandiram Wadhwani,
Aged about 56 years, Occu : Business.
2. Smt.Chandradevi Wd/o Chandiram Wadhwani,
Aged about 80 years, Occu : Business.
Both the applicants areR/o 512, Empress
Villa, New Colony, Nagpur. APPLICANTS
.....VERSUS.....
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through Police Station Officer,
Sadar Police Station, Nagpur.
2. Piyush S/o Yogendra Mishra,
Aged about 55 years, Occu : Business,
R/o 102, Jai Kalpana Building,
Ramdaspeth, Nagpur. NON-APPLICA
NTS
Shri F.T. Mirza, Counsel for the applicants.
Shri S.S. Doifode, Additional Public Prosecutor for the non-applicant no.1.
CORAM :SMT.VASANTI A NAIK AND
M.G. GIRATKAR, JJ.
DATE : 05 TH SEPTEMBER, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK, J.)
The criminal application is ADMITTED and heard finally at the stage of admission as the non-applicants are duly served.
2. By this criminal application, the applicants seek the quashing and setting aside of F.I.R. No.220 of 2007 registered against the applicants for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code.
::: Uploaded on - 07/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2017 02:06:35 :::
APL 501/17 2 Judgment
3. The applicant no.2 had purchased the field property from the non-applicant no.2 in the year 1996 by a registered sale-deed. There was no objection from the side of the non-applicant no.2 against any of the applicants till the year 2006 when a report was lodged by the non- applicant no.2 against the applicants alleging therein that by preparing a false deed of power of attorney, the applicants had wrongfully got the sale-deed of the field property registered in the name of the applicant no.2. The first information report was registered on the report lodged by the non-applicant no.2 in the year 2006. However, after investigation, as no offence could be made out against the applicants, a 'B' summary was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kalmeshwar and the Court accepted the 'B' summary and passed the order thereon. After the 'B' summary was filed in the first information report registered against the applicants in the year 2006, a civil suit was filed by the non-applicant no.2 against the applicants bearing Special Civil Suit No.240 of 2008 for declaration and cancellation of the sale-deed executed in favour of the applicant no.2 in the year 1996. In the year 2008, the applicants sold the property purchased by them in the year 1996 to a third party. After the 'B' summary report was filed in the first information report registered in the year 2006 against the applicants, the non-applicant no.2 lodged a second report on the same allegations that were levelled in the report filed by him in the year 2006, with Sadar police station, Nagpur. On the ::: Uploaded on - 07/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2017 02:06:35 ::: APL 501/17 3 Judgment basis of the second report, a first information report was registered by the non-applicant no.1 against the applicants, bearing F.I.R. No.220 of 2017. The applicants have sought the quashing and setting aside of the said first information report.
4. Shri Mirza, the learned counsel for the applicants, submitted that the non-applicant no.1 was not justified in registering the first information report against the applicants after the 'B' summary was filed in F.I.R. No.282 of 2006 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kalmeshwar and the 'B' summary was accepted by the competent Court. It is submitted that once the 'B' summary was filed in respect of the allegations made in F.I.R. No.282 of 2006, the first information report could not have been again registered against the applicants by the non- applicant no.1 in 2017. It is submitted that the dispute between the applicants and the non-applicant no.2 is a civil dispute and a civil suit bearing Special Civil Suit No.240 of 2008 was filed by the non-applicant no.2 against the applicants in the year 2008. It is stated that the suit was withdrawn by the non-applicant no.2 by personally remaining present before the trial Court. It is stated that in the circumstances of the case, it would be necessary to quash and set aside the first information report registered against the applicants.
::: Uploaded on - 07/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2017 02:06:35 :::
APL 501/17 4 Judgment
5. Shri Doifode, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the non-applicant no.1, fairly submitted by producing the case papers pertaining to the investigation in the first information report registered against the applicants, bearing F.I.R. No.220 of 2017 that it was not brought to the notice of the non-applicant no.1 by the non- applicant no.2 that before filing the report against the applicants in Sadar police station at Nagpur, a report was lodged by him in the police station at Kalmeshwar and a 'B' summary was filed before the competent Court at Kalmeshwar. It is submitted that the filing of the civil suit and the withdrawal of the same by the non-applicant no.2 was not mentioned in the report lodged by the non-applicant no.2 in Sadar police station at Nagpur. It is stated that it is fairly admitted by the non-applicant no.1 in paragraph 12 of the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the non-applicant no.1 that the crime was registered against the applicants in Kalmeshwar police station and a 'B' summary was filed before the competent Court, was suppressed by the non-applicant no.2 while lodging the report at Sadar police station. It is stated that the fact that a suit was filed by the non-applicant no.2 and the same was withdrawn, was also not pointed out. It is stated by referring to the investigation papers that a deed of confirmation was also executed by the non-applicant no.2 confirming the sale-deed dated 23.02.1996. It is stated that had the non-applicant no.1 been aware of the report registered at Kalmeshwar police station on the ::: Uploaded on - 07/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2017 02:06:35 ::: APL 501/17 5 Judgment same allegations and the 'B' summary filed therein, the non-applicant no.1 would not have registered the first information report against the applicants, bearing F.I.R. No.220 of 2017.
6. In the circumstances of the case, it would be necessary to quash and set aside the first information report bearing F.I.R. No.220 of 2017 registered against the applicants for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code. The dispute between the parties is a civil dispute. The field property was sold by the non-applicant no.2 to the applicant no.2 by a registered sale-deed, dated 23.02.1996. After the execution of the registered sale-deed in the year 1996, the non-applicant no.2 did not take any steps against the applicant no.2 till he lodged a report against the applicants in Kalmeshwar police station in the year 2006. The first information report was registered against the applicants in the year 2006. The filing of the 'B' summary before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kalmeshwar and the acceptance thereof, was suppressed by the non- applicant no.2 while lodging the report against the applicants at Sadar police station, Nagpur. The fact that the non-applicant no.2 had filed a suit against the applicants for declaration and cancellation of the sale- deed executed in the year 1996 and the same was withdrawn simplicitor without seeking any liberty, was also suppressed by the non-applicant ::: Uploaded on - 07/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2017 02:06:35 ::: APL 501/17 6 Judgment no.2 in the report lodged with the non-applicant no.1. It is rightly stated on behalf of the non-applicant no.1 that had the non-applicant no.1 been aware of the aforesaid facts that were suppressed by the non-applicant no.2, the non-applicant no.1 may not have registered the first information report against the applicants. Since a second F.I.R. cannot be registered after a 'B' summary is filed, F.I.R. No.220 of 2017 is liable to be quashed and set aside. While holding so, we humbly follow the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T.T. Anthony Versus State of Kerala & Others, reported in (2001) 6 SCC 161 that after registering the first information report and commencing investigation, registering a second F.I.R. or successive first information reports in respect of the same incident and crime and making a fresh investigation in pursuance thereto, would be irregular which would call for interference by the High Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India or Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
7. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the criminal application is allowed. The first information report bearing F.I.R. No.220 of 2017 registered against the applicants for the offence punishable under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code and the proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed and set aside.
::: Uploaded on - 07/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2017 02:06:35 :::
APL 501/17 7 Judgment
Order accordingly.
JUDGE JUDGE
APTE
::: Uploaded on - 07/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2017 02:06:35 :::