Karnataka High Court
Sri A S Pattabiraman M.Sc., Caiib vs State Of Karnataka on 9 July, 2012
Author: Subhash B.Adi
Bench: Subhash B Adi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 9th DAY OF JULY 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUBHASH B ADI
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4525 OF 2010 C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION NOS.4526 OF 2010, 4524 OF 2010
& 4527 OF 2010
CRL.P.NO.4525/2010
BETWEEN:
SRI A S PATTABIRAMAN M.SC., CAIIB
S/O LATE SRI A.B.SUBRAMANYAN
AGE: 70 YEARS
NO.607-A, IST MAIN RAOD,
2ND STAGE, E BLOCK RAJAJINAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 010 ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. C V NAGESH, SR. ADV.)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
INDIRANAGAR POLICE STATION,
BANGALORE CITY
2. SRI RAMANNA GOWDA HADIMANI
MAJOR IN AGE
S/O SRI HANUMANTHA GOWDA
SHIVAGIRI, 2ND MAIN LEFT SIDE
DHARWAD 580 001 ...RESPONDENTS
(SRI.VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, HCGP FOR R1
SRI.A.V.RAMAKRISHNA, ADV. FOR R2)
2
CRL.P.NO.4526/2010
BETWEEN:
SRI A S PATTABIRAMAN M.SC., CAIIB
S/O LATE SRI A.B.SUBRAMANYAN
AGE: 70 YEARS
NO.607-A, IST MAIN RAOD,
2ND STAGE, E BLOCK RAJAJINAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 010 ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. C V NAGESH, SR. ADV.)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
INDIRANAGAR POLICE STATION,
BANGALORE CITY
2. KUMARI P.P.BENDRE
D/O LATE PANDURANGA D.BENDRE
MAJOR IN AGE
13, SRIMATA, SADANAKERE
DHARWAD 580 008 ...RESPONDENTS
(SRI.VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, HCGP FOR R1
R2 - SERVED - UNREPRESENTED)
CRL.P.NO.4524/2010
BETWEEN:
SRI A S PATTABIRAMAN M.SC., CAIIB
S/O LATE SRI A.B.SUBRAMANYAN
AGE: 70 YEARS
NO.607-A, IST MAIN RAOD,
2ND STAGE, E BLOCK RAJAJINAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 010 ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. C V NAGESH, SR. ADV.)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
3
INDIRANAGAR POLICE STATION,
BANGALORE CITY
2. SRI MURALIDHARAN
MAJOR IN AGE
S/O SRI P.S.RAMANATHAM
NO.48, "POORNA TEJA"
RANICHANNAMANAGARA 2ND STAGE,
DHARWAD 580 001 ...RESPONDENTS
(SRI.VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, HCGP FOR R1
SRI.A.V.RAMAKRISHNA, ADV. FOR R2)
CRL.P.NO.4527/2010
BETWEEN:
SRI A S PATTABIRAMAN M.SC., CAIIB
S/O LATE SRI A.B.SUBRAMANYAN
AGE: 70 YEARS
NO.607-A, IST MAIN RAOD,
2ND STAGE, E BLOCK RAJAJINAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 010 ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. C V NAGESH, SR. ADV.)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
INDIRANAGAR POLICE STATION,
BANGALORE CITY
2. SRI BADRAPPA H HAKKI
MAJOR IN AGE
S/O SRI HANUMANTHA HAKKI
PLOT NO.103,
RANI CHANNAMMA NAGARA,
DHARWAD 580 008 ...RESPONDENTS
(SRI.VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, HCGP FOR R1
SRI.A.V.RAMAKRISHNA, ADV. FOR R2)
---
These Criminal Petitions are filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR in Cr.Nos.364/2010, 458/2008,
4
363/2010, 362/2010, respectively, registered at Indiranagar
Police Station, Bangalore in the case as well as the
proceedings recorded subsequent thereto in relation to the
said case.
These Petitions coming on for Admission this day, the
Court made the following:-
ORDER
Petitioner in all these petitions have called in question the proceedings in Crime Nos.364/2010, 458/2008, 363/2010 and 362/2010, respectively registered by Indiranagar police station, Bangalore city.
2. The respondent - complainant in all the cases filed a complaint inter-alia alleging that, they had invested an amount of Rs.18,93,000/- between 2000 and 2001 as per 55 deposit receipts issued by the accused Company, Rs.3,000/- between 1998 and 2001, Rs.19,94,000/- between 1999 and 2001 as per 64 deposit receipts and Rs.12,80,000/- between 1998 and 2001 as per 66 deposit receipts, respectively. The 1st deposit of the complainant in all the cases has matured. The petitioner- Company, which had promised that, it would return the deposit amount along with the agreed interest. However, neither deposit nor the interest was paid. 5
3. The accused Company offering very attractive interest, has collected huge amount from several depositors and has committed a cheating and breach of trust, etc. The accused Company is a registered Company under the Company Law. To start its financial activities, it had obtained certain permission from the Reserve Bank of India. However, on maturity, the Company did not pay money to the depositors, inturn, the accused misappropriated the said amount by converting the same for the personal purpose. Complainants, having lost their amount on false promise, filed separate complaints.
4. The petitioner - accused has called in question the registration of the crime by the competent police on the basis of the complaints given by the respondent - complainants.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that several investors had filed complaints before the R.B.I. alleging the fraud played by the accused Company on 2.3.2002. The R.B.I., on the basis of the complaints received from the investors, filed a complaint for the offence 6 punishable under Sections 403, 405, 406, 415, 417, 420, 463, 464 and 465 of IPC. In pursuance to the said complaint, the jurisdictional police, on investigation, has filed charge sheet. The allegation made in the complaint filed by the R.B.I. and the allegation in the present complaints filed by the investors are one and the same. Further, the offence alleged is also one and the same. Hence, the 2 nd complaint for the same offence on the same allegation is not maintainable. To support his contention, he relied on the judgment of the Apex Court reported in (2011) 1 SCC (Crl.) 336 in the case of 'STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. v. GANESHBHAI JAKSHIBAI BHARWAD AND ORS.' and submitted that FIRs in respect of the same transaction subsequent to registration of an FIR, on any further complaint in connection with the same offence relating to the same incident or incidents which are parts of the same transaction, reiterated, is not permissible, but if two FIRs are pertaining to two different incidents, at different time, the registration of two or more separate FIRs is permissible.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant in all the cases submitted that, though the 7 accused are same, but the complainants are different and the deposit made by the complainants are also different, as such, they do not constitute same transaction, hence, the separate registration of complaint is valid. He also submitted that, in the complaint filed by the Reserve Bank of India, these complainants are not cited as witnesses nor in the charge sheet they are referred as witnesses. Hence, the investor - complainants for the investigation of the alleged offence have filed separate complaints and it is maintainable.
7. Facts which are not disputed are that, the petitioner GANESHBHAI alleged to be the Managing Director of a Company called S.N.Finance Ltd., which was incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act with a registered office at 9th Cross, Indiranagar, Bangalore. The said Company was also registered under Section 45(i)(a) of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934. It had invited deposits from various investors and had made investment on the said amount in several other activities. The Reserve Bank of India noticed some transaction without authority and had prohibited the Company from accepting the deposits and also from selling, transferring, creating, mortgaging or 8 changing the properties of the Company, as per order passed on 15.4.2002. Further, the Reserve Bank of India received several complaints from the depositors of the Company regarding non-payment of the deposit amount and it was also reported in the newspaper inter-alia stating that the accused Company, after collecting huge amount by way of deposits, has not returned the same. The Company and its officials have dishonestly misappropriated and converted the said amount for their own use. Having noticed these aspects, the Reserve Bank of India filed a complaint for the offence punishable under Sections 403, 406, 417, 420, 421, 424 and 465 of IPC.
8. In the said complaint, the Reserve Bank of India has referred to the misappropriation of amount to the tune of Rs.7,97,00,000/- and it has made reference to the allegation of misappropriation of funds deposited by the various depositors. On the basis of the said complaint, the police, on investigation, have filed the charge sheet and the matter is pending for trial. The complaint filed by the Reserve Bank of India is in September 2002. However, subsequently, these complaints have been filed in the year 2010. 9
9. Indeed, the allegations in the complaint filed by the Reserve Bank of India and the allegations made in the complaints filed by the respondent - complainants are one and the same. They relate to misappropriation and converting the amount for personal benefit by the Directors of the Company and the misappropriation estimated is also to the tune of Rs.7,97,00,000/-. On the basis of the allegation made by the Reserve Bank of India, police have filed the charge sheet in respect of the very same transaction. If on the basis of the same accusation, the complaint is registered and on investigation, the charge sheet is filed, the second complaint on the basis of the same accusation is not maintainable.
10. This aspect was considered by the Apex Court reported in GANESHBHAI'S case stated supra, wherein the Apex Court referring to the earlier decisions, has observed at paragraphs 13, 20 and 21 as under:
"13. In Ram Lal Narang V. State (Delhi Admn.) this Court considered a case wherein two FIRs had been lodged. The first one formed part of a subsequent larger conspiracy which came to 10 light on receipt of fresh information. Some of the conspirators were common in both the FIRs and the object of conspiracy in both the cases was not the same. This Court while considering the question as to whether investigation and further proceedings on the basis of both the FIRs was permissible held that no straitjacket formula can be laid down in this regard. The only test whether two FIRs can be permitted to exist was whether the two conspiracies were identical or not. After considering the facts of the said case, the Court came to the conclusion that both conspiracies were not identical. Therefore, lodging of two FIRs was held to be permissible.
20. Thus, in view of the above, the law on the subject emerges to the effect that an FIR under Section 154 Cr.P.C. is a very important document. It is the first information of a cognizable offence recorded by the officer in charge of the police station. It sets the machinery of criminal law in motion and marks the commencement of the investigation which ends with the formation of an opinion under Section 169 or 170 Cr.P.C., as the case may be, and forwarding of a police report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. Thus, it is quite possible that more than one piece of information be 11 given to the police officer in charge of the police station in respect of the same incident involving one or more than one cognizable offences. In such a case, he need not enter each piece of information in the diary. All other information given orally or in writing after the commencement of the investigation into the facts mentioned in the first information report will be statements falling under Section 162 Cr.P.C.
21. In such a case the court has to examine the facts and circumstances giving rise to both the FIRs and the test of sameness is to be applied to find out whether both the FIRs relate to the same incident in respect of the same occurrence or are in regard to the incidents which are two or more parts of the same transaction. If the answer is in the affirmative, the second FIR is liable to be quashed. However, in case, the contrary is proved, where the version in the second FIR is different and they are in respect of the two different incidents/crimes, the second FIR is permissible. In case in respect of the same incident the accused in the first FIR comes forward with a different version or counterclaim, investigation on both the FIRs has to be conducted."12
11. It is not disputed that the 1st FIR was based on the same allegation. It alleges that the accused Company has cheated the investors by converting the deposit to their own use. The subsequent complaint may only form part of further information of the same incident. There is no second incident nor there is separate offence committed. The entire allegation made in the first complaint and the subsequent complaints being in respect of cheating the depositors, the subsequent complaints do not become second incident.
12. The incident being one and the same, accusation being one and the same, the subsequent complaints may be further information to the complaint already registered. As such, registration of second and subsequent complaints is vitiated.
13. If the depositors have further information, they may place before the Court which is trying the case. The Trial Court has power to either summon the witnesses or even add the accused at any stage of the trial based on evidence. If such material is produced by the complainants in accordance 13 with law, it is open to the Trial Court to consider the same in accordance with law. Just because these complainants are not shown as witnesses in the complaint filed by the R.B.I., that will give rise to file separate complaint. Even if there is need for further investigation, it is open to the police to invoke the provisions of Section 173(8) of Crl.P.C.
14. For the above reasons, the filing of second and subsequent complaints are liable to be quashed.
Accordingly, these criminal petitions are allowed. The FIRs in Crime Nos.364/2010, 458/2008, 363/2010 and 362/2010, respectively registered by Indiranagar police station, Bangalore pending on the file of the IV A.C.M.M., Bangalore are hereby quashed with liberty to the respondent
- complainants as observed above.
Sd/-
JUDGE RV