Karnataka High Court
Agri Gold Farm Estates India vs State Of Karnataka By on 5 April, 2016
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL, 2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP D. WAINGANKAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1785/2016
BETWEEN:-
AGRI GOLD FARM ESTATES INDIA
PRIVATE LIMITED
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
AGRI GOLD TOWERS, H.NO.6-3-680/A/B
THAKUR MANSION LANE
NEAR SOMAJIGUDA CIRCLE
HYDERABAD-500 082, TELANGANA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
CHINNAPPA SREENIVASA REDDY
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. C.H. JADHAV, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. PRASANNA KUMAR P, ADV.,)
AND:-
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
CID BANGALORE-01
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. K. R. KESHAVAMURTHY, SPP-II)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
QUASH FIR NO.77/2015 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-B
REGISTERED BY THE THILAK PARK P. S. TUMKUR AND
TRANSFERRED TO CID, BANGALORE PENDING ON THE FILE
OF 1ST JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, BANGALORE.
2
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY THE COURT
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by accused No.1 Agri Gold Farm Estates India Pvt. Ltd., is to quash the proceedings in Crime No.77/2015 came to be registered in Tilakpark Police Station, now transferred to CID, Bangalore, for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 406, 409, 420 and 149 of IPC pending on the file of the Court of I Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bangalore.
2. One G. Nagamma filed a complaint dated 27.04.2015 before the III Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Dvn.) Tumkur. It is alleged in the complaint that one Mr. Avvas Venkatarama Rao, including other Directors namely Srinivasa Reddy, Seetharam Avvas, Dharmaprakash, Prathap, Srinivas R, Jayaram, Gurulingaswamy, Munindra Kumar, M.Mahadevaiah, Shivananda Malagavi, H.S. Belakod, Prakash 3 Devaadiga, established a company in the name and style as Agri Gold Farm Estate India Pvt. Ltd., situated at Hyderabad in Andhra Pradesh State registered under the Companies Act for the purpose of acquisition of land, conversion of the same and improvement/development for non agricultural purpose i.e., residential and commercial purposes so also for collection of pigmy amount through their agents assuring benefits for those collected amounts like interest, doubling the amounts and thereby to invest the collected amount for development of the landed properties i.e., real estate, etc., It is submitted that the accused proclaimed company business plan to selling of F.M.C.G. Product manufacturing, construction of one/two/three and four bedded rooms house/farm house/duplex house and agriculture land and distribution of the same among its consumers and they have appointed representatives persons to collect money from public in the name of company and by way of fund mobilizing activity by 4 launching "collective investment scheme" without obtaining registration from SEBI in accordance with law and by this way they were collected more than laksh to crores amount from the general public of Karnataka State, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Orissa and across the India. The complainants themselves were the investors cum agents to the accused company and have collected huge amount from the customer which has crossed more than Rs.3300 crores and the accused company has deliberately cheated its customers. Further, it is stated that due to the act of accused company some of the customers have committed suicide.
3. On the basis of the complaint filed by the complainant Smt. G. Nagamma, Crime No.77/2015 came to be registered in Thilak Park Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 406, 409, 420, 149 of IPC against accused persons who are the agents of the petitioner company. The investigation is in progress. In the meanwhile 5 this petition came to be filed to quash the FIR since it is second FIR the registration of which impermissible in Law.
4. The submission of the learned Senior counsel Sri. C.H. Jadhav, for the petitioner is that in connection with the very same matter arising out very same transaction one Krishna Naik lodged a complaint before Udupi Town Police Station in Crime No.6/2015 for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC which is the earliest FIR, likewise in connection with the very same matter arising out of the same transaction at the instance of one Kumaraswamy, Crime No.92/2015 came to be registered in Sampangiramnagar Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, 120B of IPC. Similarly yet another Crime No.43/2015 of Doddaballapur Town Police Station on the strength of the complaint lodged by one H.C. Devakumar. It is also submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that now investigation is handed over to the CID, Bangalore. It is 6 further submitted that in connection with the incident arising out of the same transaction, the registration of the second FIR or multiple FIRs is impermissible in law and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and therefore, second FIR or multiple FIRs are liable to be quashed.
5. The learned Senior Counsel has taken me through a circular No.L&O/Misc./24/2015-16 dated 30.07.2015 issued by Government of Karnataka, Police Department, wherein it has been clearly stated that any subsequent information the Investigating Officer receives with regard to any incident out of the same incident or with regard to any incident out of the same transaction, he shall not register further crime numbers but he shall treat that information as the statement of the witnesses either under Section 162 of Cr.P.C. or under Section 161 of Cr.P.C in the earliest case registered.
7
6. Since the FIR in question is registered in respect of an incident arising of the very same transaction involved in Udupi Town Police Station Crime No.6/2015 registered on 10.01.2015, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in T.T. Antony vs. State of Kerala and others reported in 2001 SCC (Crime) 1048 and in view of the Circular dated 30.07.2015 issued by the Director General and Inspector General of Police, Bangalore, the FIR in Crime No.77/2015 of Thilak Park Police Station being a second FIR is liable to be quashed. The Investigating Officer who is investigating Crime No.6/2015 of Udupi Town Police Station now transferred to CID shall treat the information i.e., the complaint of Smt. G. Nagamma as her statement under Section 162 of Cr.P.C. or Section 161 of Cr.P.C in Udupi Town Police Station Crime No.6/2015.
8
7. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The FIR in Crime No.77/2015 of Thilak Park Police Station, is quashed with a direction to the Investigating Officer to treat the information given by Smt. G. Nagamma/the complainant as her statement under Section 162 of Cr.P.C. or Section 161 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.6/2015 of Udupi Town Police Station and proceed to investigate.
Sd/-
JUDGE PMR