Delhi District Court
Case Of Ram Lal Narang & Others vs . State (Delhi Administration) on 24 July, 2007
1 A.C. NO. 03/2006
IN THE COURT OF SH. DINESH DAYAL
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
CASE I.D. NUMBER 02402R0456922004
A.C. NUMBER 03/2006
R.C. NUMBER 4 (S)/2002-SCB.I/DLI
UNDER SECTIONS 302/201 IPC.
COMMITTED TO SESSIONS ON 30.09.2005
DATE ON WHICH ARGUMENTS 21.07.2007
HEARD ON APPLICATION
DATE OF ORDER 24.07.2007
IN THE MATTER OF
CBI
Versus
(i) Sh. Bansi Lal
S/o Late Kasturi Lal
R/o 13/42, Geeta Colony,
Delhi
(ii) Prem Pujari
S/o Sh. Taru Lal
R/o B-42, Jawahar Park,
Shahibabad, UP
Also at: A-29, Rani Garden,
Geeta Colony, Delhi
...Accused persons
ORDER
1. This order will dispose of the application dated 23rd February 2006 filed by the accused Bansi Lal for declaring that the 2 A.C. NO. 03/2006 FIR registered in this case by the CBI being RC No. 4 (s) 2002/SCB- I/DLI dated 29.05.2002 is illegal and the proceedings done on the basis of the second FIR are liable to be ignored.
2. The accused Bansi Lal has further prayed that since the FIR registered by the CBI is illegal and the investigations done by the CBI on the basis of the said FIR are liable to be ignored , he is liable to be discharged.
3. The accused has alleged that FIR bearing Number 118/99, Police Station Geeta Colony , under Section 302/201/120B/34 IPC was registered after completion of investigations. Sessions case bearing Number 141/02 was decided by Shri J.M.Malik, Additional Sessions Judge, Karkardooma Courts and in that case accused Mahender pal was convicted and accused Ved Prakash was discharged. After that a charge sheet was filed accused Harish Kumar, Harmesh Kumar and Tilak Raj and they are being tried in sessions case bearing no. 15/01 pending in this court.
4. A criminal writ petition bearing no. 1190/01 had been filed in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi . In this writ petition the CBI was 3 A.C. NO. 03/2006 directed to carry out further investigation of the case in FIR bearing no. 118/99. The CBI in contravention of the directions of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi registered the second FIR being RC No. 4 (s) 2002/SCB-I/DLI . The directions of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi were only for further investigations under section 173 (8) Cr.PC in accordance with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Lal Narang & Others Vs. State (Delhi Administration) reported as 1979 (2) SCC 322.
5. The accused has alleged that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T.T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala and Others reported as 2001 (3) Crimes 276 (SC) has held that " there can be no second FIR and thus there can be no fresh investigation on receipt of every subsequent information in respect of the same cognizable offence or the same occurrence or incident giving rise to one or more cognizable offences". The accused has thus prayed that the FIR registered by the CBI be declared as illegal and the investigations done on the basis of the said FIR be quashed and the accused be discharged.
6. The CBI filed a reply to the said application alleging that 4 A.C. NO. 03/2006 there is no provision of Cr.PC which debars or prohibits filing of second FIR and investigations merely because there was a FIR which was duly investigated into and culminated into the final report. The CBI further alleged in the reply that the present proceedings relate to fresh persons and fresh material brought out during the investigations, though the results of earlier investigations have not been ignored or obliterated.
7. The complainant also filed an additional reply and placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Upkar Singh Vs. Ved Prakash reported as 2005 SCC Criminal SC page 211 and on the judgment in the case of Kari Choudhary Vs. MST. Sita Devi etc reported as SCC 2002 Cr. L. J. page 923.
8. I have heard the Learned counsel for accused Bansi Lal, Learned Special P.P for CBI and Learned counsel for the complainant.
9. Briefly the chronological history of events is as under:
(i) FIR bearing No. 118/99 , PS Geeta Colony under Section 365 IPC was registered on 29.06.1999.5 A.C. NO. 03/2006
(ii) Chargesheet was filed against the accused Mahender Pal and Ved Prakash by the Delhi Police under section 302/201 IPC in September 1999. Accused Harish, Harmesh Kumar and Tilak Raj were shown as Proclaimed Offenders.
(iii) The aforesaid case was decided by Sh. J.M. Malik, Additional Sessions Judge, Karkardooma Courts in August 2003. Sh. J.M. Malik, Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused Mahender Pal and acquitted accused Ved Prakash.
(iv) Babita w/o Daulat Ram deceased filed a writ petition bearing no. 1190/01 in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi alleging that the main conspirator Bansi Lal had not been challaned by the local police.
(v) On 06.05.2002, the Hon'ble High Court directed the CBI to carry out further investigation.
(vi) Supplementary Charge sheet against accused Harish and Harmesh Kumar filed by Crime Branch of Delhi Police on 05.03.2002.
(vii) The second FIR being RC No. 4 (s) 2002/SCB-
I/DLI was registered by the CBI on 29.05.2002.
6 A.C. NO. 03/2006
(viii) CBI submitted charge sheet on 19.11.2004 against accused Bansi Lal, Tilak Raj and Prem Pujari were shown as Proclaimed Offender.
(ix) Supplementary charge sheet filed against the accused Tilak Raj by the CBI on 02.03.2007.
10. The various judgments referred to by the parties may also be mentioned in the chronological order. In the case of Ram Lal Narang & Others Vs. State (Delhi Administration) reported as (1979) 2 SCC 322 , the contention urged by the appellant was that the police had committed illegality, acted without jurisdiction in investigation into the second case and the Delhi Court acted illegally in taking cognizance of that (the second) case. The reference to the facts of that case would be interesting. Two precious antique pillars of sand stone were deposited in the Court of Ilaqa Magistrate Karnal, as stolen property. One N.N. Malik filed an application before the magistrate seeking custody of the pillars to make in detail study on the pretext that he was a research scholar. It appears that the then Chief Judicial Magistrate of Karnal was a friend of Malik. At the instance of Chief Judicial Magistrate , Ilaqa Magistrate ordered that 7 A.C. NO. 03/2006 the custody of the pillars be given to Malik on his executing a bond. About three months thereafter, Malik deposited two pillars in the court of Ilaqa Magistrate Karnal. After sometime it came to light that the pillars returned by Malik were not the original genuine pillars but were fake pillars. An FIR was lodged against both Malik and Chief Judicial Magistrate Karnal under section 120 B read with sections 406 and 420 IPC alleging conspiracy to commit criminal breach of trust and cheating. The CBI after necessary investigation filed charge sheet in the court of Special Magistrate, Ambala, against both of them. Ultimately on the application of the public prosecutor the case was permitted to be withdrawn and the accused were discharged. Sometimes later the original pillars were found in London which led to registering an FIR in Delhi under section 120 B read with sections 411 of IPC and section 25 (1) of the Antiquities and Treasures Act 1972 against three accused persons, who were brothers (referred to as Narangs). The gravamen of the charge against them was that they, Malik and Chief Judicial Magistrate conspired together to obtain custody of the genuine pillars, got duplicate pillars made by 8 A.C. NO. 03/2006 experienced sculptors and had them substituted with a view to smuggle out the original genuine pillars to London. After issuing process for appearance of Narangs by the Magistrate at Delhi, an application was filed for dropping the proceedings against them on the ground that the entire second investigation was illegal as the case on the same facts was already pending before Ambala Court, therefore, the Delhi Court acted without jurisdiction in taking cognizance of the case on the basis of illegal investigation and the report forwarded by the police. The magistrate referred the case to the High Court and Narangs also filed an application under section 482 of Cr.PC to quashed the proceedings . The High Court declined to quash the proceedings , dismissed the application of Narangs and thus answered the reference. On appeal to the Hon'ble Supreme Court it was contended that the subject matter of the two FIRs and two chargesheets being the same there was an implied bar on the powers of the police to investigate into the subsequent FIR and the Court at Delhi to take cognizance upon the report of such information. The Supreme Court indicated that the real question was whether the 9 A.C. NO. 03/2006 two conspiracies were in substance and truth the same and held that the conspiracies in the two cases were not identical.
11. In the case of T.T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala reported as 2001 Cr. L.R. (SC) 633 ( 2001 (3) Crimes 276 (SC)), the case of Ram Lal Narang & Others (supra) came up for consideration of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and it was found that if the gravamen of the charges in the two FIRs -the first and the second- is in substance and truth the same, registering the second FIR and making fresh investigation and forwarding report under section 173 Cr.PC will be irregular and the Court can not take cognizance of the same.
12. In the case of Kari Choudhary Vs. MST. Sita Devi and Others reported as 2002 CRL. L.J. 923, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering a complaint about murder. It was found that the complaint about the murder was filed by the mother in law . FIR was registered on the basis of the complaint and investigation was launched. The police during investigation found that version of occurrence given in FIR filed by the mother in law was false. Police 10 A.C. NO. 03/2006 on the other hand found that the mother in law has conspired to murder the deceased. The police therefore, sent a report to the Magistrate that the FIR lodged by the Mother in law was false. The Magistrate accepted this report. But that order was quashed by the High Court in revision. Police continued with the investigation after informing the Court that they have registered another FIR. The investigation culminated in filing of charge sheet against the mother in law . The proceedings so initiated against mother in law were quashed by the High Court.
13. The Supreme Court held that it was too technical to quash the criminal proceedings on ground that once the final report submitted by the police that the complaint filed by mother in law was false had been quashed, a second final report cannot be filed by the police albeit against other accused or that once the proceedings initiated under FIR lodged by mother in law ended in a final report the police had no authority to register a second FIR.
14. The last case referred to during the course of arguments is the case of Upkar Singh Vs. Ved Prakash and others reported as 11 A.C. NO. 03/2006 2005 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 211. In this case it was held that in regard to a complaint arising out of a complaint on further investigation if it was found that there was a larger conspiracy than the one referred to in the previous complaint then a further investigation culminating in another complaint is permissible. It was further held that a perusal of the judgment in the case of Ram Lal Narang Vs. State (Delhi Administration) (supra) also shows that even in cases where a prior complaint is already registered, a counter-complaint is permissible but it goes further and holds that even in cases where a first complaint is registered and investigation initiated, it is possible to file a further complaint by the same complainant based on the material gathered during the course of investigation. Of course, this larger proposition of law laid down in Ram Lal Narang case (supra) is not necessary to be relied on in the present case. Suffice it to say that the discussion in Ram Lal Narang case (supra) is in the same line as found in the judgments in Kari Choudhary and State of Bihar Vs. J.A.C. Saldanha. However, it must 12 A.C. NO. 03/2006 be noticed that in T.T. Antony case (supra), Ram Lal Narang case (supra) was noticed but the Court did not express any opinion either way.
15. A consideration of all the aforesaid judgments would show that the view taken by The Supreme Court in the case of T.T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala reported as 2001 Cr.L.R (SC) 633 (2001 (3) Crimes 276 (SC)) is inconsonance with all the other judgments. The result of all the aforesaid judgments can be summarized by the words used in the judgment of T.T. Antony (supra) , it follows that if the gravamen of the charges in the two FIRs-the first and the second-is in substance and truth the same , registering the second FIR and making fresh investigation and forwarding report under section 173 Cr.PC will be irregular and the Court can not take cognizance of the same.
16. In the background of the above law we have to consider the facts of the present case. The FIR registered by the CBI needs to be reproduced to understand the situation.
13 A.C. NO. 03/2006
"SUCHNA/INFORMATION Hon'ble High Court of Delhi passed an order on 06.05.2002 in Crl. Writ Petition No. 1190/2001 and Crl. Misc. No. 368/2002 and Crl. M. No. 1022/2001 directing CBI to carry out further investigation of case FIR no. 118/99 Under section 365 IPC P.S Geeta Colony.
The case FIR No. 118/99 was registered on the complaint of Sh.
Suresh Kumar S/o Sh. Attar Singh R/o D-196 Vivek Vihar, Delhi.
(Statement of Sh. Suresh Kumar as contained in the FIR bearing No. 118/99 U/s 365 IPC P.S. Geeta Colony reproduced verbatim.) On the basis of this complaint initially a case FIR no.
118/99 was registered in PS Geeta Colony, Delhi on 29.06.99 Under section 365 IPC. Subsequently, the burnt dead body of Daulat Ram was recovered in the area of PS Link Road and the sections of law were changed from 365 IPC to 302 , 201 and 120 B IPC. After investigation a charge sheet was filed against accused namely 1) Mahendra Pal S/o Kasturi Lal, 2) Ved Prakash S/o Chaman Lal, 3) Harish S/o Kasturi Lal, 4) Harmesh @ Ramesh @ Kalu S/o Kishan 14 A.C. NO. 03/2006 Lal and 5) Tilak Raj S/o Brij Lal in the court by local police and the case is pending trial.
Therefore, in view of the above a regular case under section 302,201, 120B IPC is registered and investigation entrusted to Sh. H.S. Rawat, Inspr./CBI/SCB-I/New Delhi.
(NAVDEEP SINGH VIRK) SUPDT. OF POLICE CBI/SCB-I/NEW DELHI"
17. The aforesaid FIR clearly shows that though the allegations made in this FIR relating to the incident are the same ,the gravamen of the FIR is the direction of the Hon'ble High Court whereby the CBI has been directed to conduct further investigations. No doubt further investigations could have been done by the CBI without registering a separate FIR. It would appear that, that would have been the proper course to adopt. However, the registering of the second FIR cannot vitiate the investigations conducted by the CBI or the charge sheet filed on the basis of such investigations. It must be kept in mind that the CBI has conducted investigations into this case at the directions of the Hon'ble High Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1190/01. The CBI 15 A.C. NO. 03/2006 was thus bound to carry out further investigations in the case under the directions of the Hon'ble High Court. Investigations could culminate only in filing of a report under section 173 Cr.PC. The registering of the second FIR therefore, has no relevance to the final report against the accused.
18. No prejudice has been caused to the accused by registration of the second FIR in as much as there are no new allegations contained in the second FIR with regard to the incident. The CBI has not carried out investigation in respect of any other allegation contained in the second FIR. The investigation carried out by the CBI is in compliance of the order of the Hon'ble High Court. I, therefore, find that the proceedings against the accused cannot be dropped merely because the second FIR was registered by the CBI. The application is therefore dismissed.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24th Day of July 2007 (DINESH DAYAL) ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI