Jharkhand High Court
Harish Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand Through ... on 17 March, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 JHA 105
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. M.P. No. 2490 of 2016
Harish Kumar ... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand through Vigilance
... ... Opposite Party
With
Cr. M.P. No. 1181 of 2016
Rajendra Prasad ... ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite Party
With
Cr. M.P. No. 1459 of 2018
Anil Kumar @ Anil Sinha ... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand through Vigilance
... ... Opposite Party
With
Cr. M.P. No. 1557 of 2016
Jai Niwas Pandey @ Jai Niwas Shastri ... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand through Vigilance
... ... Opposite Party
With
Cr. M.P. No. 1797 of 2016
Shree Narain Singh ... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand through Vigilance
... ... Opposite Party
With
W.P.(Cr.) No. 191 of 2016
Anti Corruption Bureau ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Home Secretary, Government of Jharkhand
3. The Director General of Police, Jharkhand
... ... Respondents
With
Cr. M.P. No. 1182 of 2016
Rajendra Prasad ... ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite Party
2
With
Cr. M.P. No. 1562 of 2016
Jai Niwas Pandey @ Jai Niwas Shastri @ Jai Niwas
... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand through Vigilance
... ... Opposite Party
With
Cr. M.P. No. 1711 of 2018
Harish Kumar ... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand through Vigilance
... ... Opposite Party
With
Cr. M.P. No. 2489 of 2016
Harish Kumar ... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand through Vigilance
... ... Opposite Party
With
W.P.(Cr.) No. 190 of 2016
Anti Corruption Bureau ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Home Secretary, Government of Jharkhand
3. The Director General of Police, Jharkhand
... ... Respondents
With
Cr. M.P. No. 3591 of 2017
1. Malti Devi
2. Kedar Nath Verma ... ... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand through Vigilance
... ... Opposite Party
With
Cr. M.P. No. 3644 of 2017
1. Jitendra Prasad
2. Santosh Kumar Karan ... ... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand through Vigilance
... ... Opposite Party
With
Cr. M.P. No. 3730 of 2017
1. Rajendra Prasad
2. Sushma Prasad ... ... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand through Vigilance
3
... ... Opposite Party
With
Cr. M.P. No. 3756 of 2017
Alok Kumar Kedia ... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand through Vigilance
... ... Opposite Party
With
Cr. M.P. No. 84 of 2017
1. Narsingh Das
2. Biswanath Sharma ... ... Petitioners
Versus
The state of Jharkhand through Vigilence
... ... Opposite Party
With
W.P.(Cr.) No. 221 of 2016
Anti Corruption Bureau ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Home Secretary, Government of Jharkhand
3. The Director General of Police, Jharkhand
... ... Respondents
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioners : Mr. A. K. Kashyap, Senior Advocate
With
Mr. Antriksha Shrivastava, Advocate
[in Cr.M.P. Nos. 2490, 1797 & 2489 of 2016]
Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate
[in Cr.M.P. Nos. 3591, 3644, 3730 & 3756 of 2017]
Mrs. J. Mazumdar, Advocate
Mr. Kumar Basant Narayan, Advocate
[in Cr.M.P. Nos. 1557 and 1562 of 2016]
Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Advocate
[in Cr.M.P. No. 84 of 2017]
Mr. P. S. Dayal, Advocate
[in Cr.M.P. Nos. 1459 and 1711 of 2018]
Mr. Purnendu Sharan, Advocate
[in Cr.M.P. Nos. 1181 and 1182 of 2016]
For Anti Corruption Bureau, Jharkhand:
Mr. T. N. Verma, Advocate
Mrs. Vandana Bharti, Advocate
[For petitioner in W.P.(Cr.) Nos. 190/16;
191/16 and 221/16 and for opposite party in
all other cases]
For the State : Mr. Arpit Kumar, A.C. to G.A.-II
4
---
C.A.V. On 07/02/2020 Pronounced on 17/03/2020
Per Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.
Order No. 14
1. Heard learned counsels for the parties.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. A. K. Kashyap, Senior Advocate submits that there are three sets of cases i.e. a. Following cases relate to Vigilance P.S. Case No. 30/2016 corresponding to Vigilance Case No. 32/2016:
i. Cr.M.P. No. 2490 of 2016 ii. Cr. M.P. No. 1181 of 2016 iii. Cr.M.P. No. 1459 of 2018 iv. Cr. M.P. No. 1557 of 2016 v. Cr.M.P. No. 1797 of 2016 vi. W.P.(Cr) No. 191 of 2016b. Following cases relate to Vigilance P.S. Case No. 31/2016 corresponding to Vigilance Case No. 33/2016:i. Cr. M.P. No. 1182 of 2016 ii. Cr.M.P. No. 1562 of 2016 iii. Cr.M.P. No. 2489 of 2016 iv. Cr.M.P. No. 1711 of 2018 v. W.P.(Cr) No. 190 of 2016
And c. Following cases relate to Vigilance P.S. Case No. 32/2016 corresponding to Vigilance Case No. 34/2016:i. Cr.M.P. No. 3591 of 2017 ii. Cr.M.P. No. 3644 of 2017 iii. Cr.M.P. No. 3730 of 2017 iv. Cr.M.P. No. 3756 of 2017 v. Cr.M.P. No. 84 of 2017 vi. W.P.(Cr) No. 221 of 2016 5
3. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioners submits that all Cr.M.P. have been filed by the accused persons under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the 2nd FIR and similar questions are involved therefore they have been tagged together forming a batch of cases. Learned counsel also submits that so far as writ petitions being W.P. (Cr.) No. 190 of 2016, W.P. (Cr.) No. 191 of 2016 and W.P. (Cr.) No. 221 of 2016 are concerned, they have been filed by the opposite party Anti Corruption Bureau and they are also relating to the concerned cases which are involved in the Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions (Cr.M.P.) and therefore, they have also been tagged along with the criminal miscellaneous petitions to be taken up together. He submits that the writ petitions were filed for amalgamation of the cases for which Dhanbad/Dhansar P.S. case as well as Vigilance P.S. case were filed.
RELIEFS PRAYED IN THE CASES
4. The reliefs as prayed for in Cr.M.P. No. 2490 of 2016 , Cr. M.P. No. 1181 of 2016 , Cr.M.P. No. 1459 of 2018, Cr. M.P. No. 1557 of 2016 and Cr.M.P. No. 1797 of 2016 are for quashing the F.I.R. bearing Vigilance P.S. Case No. 30/2016 including entire criminal prosecution in connection with corresponding Vigilance Case No. 32/2016 registered under Sections 406,409,419,420,423,424,467,468,471,474,477A,120B/109/34 of I.P.C., Section 3(1)(v) and 4 of the S.C & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 13(2) read along with Section 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
5. W.P.(Cr.) No. 191 of 2016 has been filed by Anti Corruption Bureau for the following reliefs:
(a) For issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 27.05.2016 passed by the learned Court of J.M. 1st Class, Dhanbad in Dhanbad (Dhansar) P.S. Case No. 398/2015 corresponding to G.R. No. 1793/2015, whereby and whereunder the prayer of the petitioner for amalgamating the above said case with Vigilance P.S. Case No. 30/2016 corresponding to Spl. (Vig.) Case No. 32/2016 has been rejected. Case is now said to be pending in the court of J.M. Ist Class, Dhanbad.6
(b) For issuance of an appropriate order for closing the prosecution arising out of Dhanbad (Dhansar) P.S. Case No. 398/2015 corresponding to G.R. No. 1793/2015 and every other corresponding prosecution arising out of the said FIR since the respondent no. 1 has been pleased to transfer the case to the A.C.B. Jharkhand vide notification dated 02.03.2016 (Annexure-
2) to conduct specialized investigation keeping in view the magnitude of high degree of corruption and conspiracy between public servants and the other accused persons in the matter of defrauding and depriving original raiyats who belong to the weakest section of the society in receiving compensation for losing their land for construction of ring road and as such the A.C.B. Jharkhand has lodged FIR vide Vigilance P.S. Case No. 30/2016 corresponding to Spl. (Vig.) Case No. 32/2016.
6. The reliefs as prayed for in Cr. M.P. No. 1182 of 2016 , Cr.M.P. No. 1562 of 2016 and Cr.M.P. No. 2489 of 2016 is for quashing the F.I.R. bearing Vigilance P.S. Case No. 31/2016 including entire criminal prosecution in connection with Vigilance Case No. 33/2016 registered under Sections 406, 409, 419, 420, 423,424, 467,468, 471,474, 477A, 120B/109/34 of I.P.C., Section 3(1)(v) and 4 of the S.C & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 13(2) read along with Section 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
7. Cr.M.P. No. 1711 of 2018 has been filed for quashing of the First Information Report and entire criminal prosecution and proceeding in connection with Vigilance P.S. Case No. 31 of 2016 corresponding to Vigilance Case No. 33 of 2016 including the entire criminal prosecution and proceedings registered under Sections 406, 409,419, 420,423, 424, 467, 468,471, 474, 477(A), 120(B),109 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 3(1)(v)/4 of Schedule Caste & Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as well as the First Information Report being Vigilance P.S. Case No. 32 of 2016 corresponding to Vigilance Case No. 34 of 2016 registered under Sections 406, 409,419, 7 420,423, 424, 467, 468,471,120(B) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 3(1)(v)/4 of the Schedule Caste & Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on the ground that for the same set of allegations Vigilance P.S. Case No. 30 of 2016 corresponding to Vigilance Case No. 32 of 2016 has already been registered under Sections 406, 409,419, 420, 423,424, 467,468, 471, 474, 477(A), 120(B), 109, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 3(1)(v)/4 of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; all the cases are said to be pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IX-cum-Special Judge, ACB, Dhanbad; and/or it has been prayed that Vigilance P.S. Case No. 31/16 (Vigilance Case No. 33/16), and Vigilance P.S. Case No. 32/16 (Vigilance Case No. 34/16) may be ordered to be amalgamated with Vigilance P.S. Case No. 30 of 2016 (Vigilance Case No. 32/16).
8. W.P.(Cr.) No. 190 of 2016 has been filed for the following reliefs:
(a) For issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 18.06.2016 passed by the learned Court of Spl. Judge, Dhanbad in Spl. (SC/ST) Case No. 24/15 arising out of Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 657/2015 whereby and whereunder the prayer of the petitioner for amalgamating the above said case with Vigilance P.S. Case No. 31/2016 corresponding to Spl. Case No. 33/2016 has been rejected.
This Court finds that in the main petition the case number has been mentioned as SC/ST Case No. 6/2016 but the correct case number as per the impugned order dated 18.06.2016 is Spl. (SC/ST) Case No. 24/15.
(b) For issuance of an appropriate order for closing the prosecution arising out of Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 657/2015 and every other corresponding prosecution arising out of the said FIR since the respondent no. 1 has been pleased to transfer the case to the A.C.B. Jharkhand vide notification dated 02.03.2016 (Annexure-2) to conduct specialized investigation keeping in view the magnitude 8 of high degree of corruption and conspiracy between public servants and the other accused persons in the matter of defrauding and depriving original raiyats who belong to the weakest section of the society in receiving compensation for losing their land for construction of housing colony for rehabilitation purpose and as such the A.C.B. Jharkhand has lodged FIR vide Vigilance P.S. Case No. 31/2016 corresponding to Spl. Case No. 33/2016.
9. The reliefs as prayed for in Cr.M.P. No. 3591 of 2017, Cr.M.P. No. 3644 of 2017 , Cr.M.P. No. 3730 of 2017 , Cr.M.P. No. 3756 of 2017 and Cr.M.P. No. 84 of 2017 is for quashing the F.I.R. bearing Vigilance P.S. Case No. 32 of 2016 dated 21.04.2016, corresponding to Vigilance Case No. 34 of 2016, registered for the offences under sections 406, 409,419, 420,423, 424, 467, 468,471,120-B, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, under Section 3(1)(v)/4 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and under section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
10. W.P.(Cr.) No. 221 of 2016 has been filed by the opposite party- Anti- Corruption Bureau for the following reliefs:
(a) For issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 25.05.2016 passed by the learned C.J.M., Dhanbad in Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 212/2016 corresponding to G.R. No. 759/2016, whereby and whereunder the prayer of the petitioner for amalgamating the above said case with Vigilance P.S. Case No. 32/2016 corresponding to Vigilance Case No. 34/2016 has been rejected. The case is now said to be pending in the court of learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Ranchi.
(b) For issuance of an appropriate order for closing the prosecution arising out of Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 212/2016 corresponding to G.R. No. 759/2016 and every other corresponding prosecution arising out of the said FIR since the respondent no. 1 has been pleased to transfer the case to the A.C.B. Jharkhand vide notification dated 03.03.2016 (Annexure-2) (signed on 02.03.2016) to conduct specialized investigation 9 keeping in view the magnitude of high degree of corruption and conspiracy between public servants and the other accused persons in the matter of defrauding and depriving original raiyats who belong to the weakest section of the society in receiving compensation for losing their land for construction of ring road and as such the A.C.B. Jharkhand has lodged FIR vide Vigilance P.S. Case No. 32/2016 corresponding to Vigilance Case No. 34/2016.
Arguments of the petitioners of Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions
11. The argument has been advanced by referring to the records of Cr. M. P. No. 2490 of 2016 and the corresponding W.P. (Cr.) No. 191 of 2016 which relates to Vigilance P.S. Case No. 30/2016 corresponding to Vigilance Case No. 32/2016 and to Dhanbad (Dhansar) P.S. Case No. 398/2015 corresponding to G.R. No. 1793/2015.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the said Vigilance Case was instituted on the basis of the complaint written by one Satish Chandra Jha, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Ranchi addressed to the Officer-in Charge of the Vigilance police station. It was alleged in the complaint regarding violation of provisions/procedure of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and irregularities in connection with participation of agents/officers and employees making payment of compensation in different circles of Dhanbad District.
It was mentioned that the case was instituted on the basis of letter dated 09.07.2015 issued by the Deputy Secretary Cabinet (Vigilance) pursuant to which Anti-corruption Bureau enquiry No. 16/2015 was registered on 10.07.2015 and thereafter an enquiry was conducted.
It was stated that the investigation unfolds the allegation of grabbing crores of rupees by the then officials in connivance with others by committing irregularities in the procedure of land acquisition proceedings for Jharia Rehabilitation and Development Authority in Dhanbad District and thereby causing financial loss to the government and real land owners.
10The complaint also mentions about the contents of the F.I.R. dated 18.04.2015 bearing Dhanbad (Dhansar) P.S. Case No. 398/2015 instituted at Dhanbad.
In the complaint case filed in the Anti Corruption Bureau, the acts of middle man/public servants and others were alleged to be cognizable and punishable under Sections 13(2), 13(1) (c) and Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and on the basis of the complaint regular case was lodged against various persons including ex-district land acquisition officer namely Lal Mohan Nayak, Uday Kant Pathak, Harish Kumar (dainik amin), Anupama Kumari (clerk) etc. Accordingly, the vigilance case was registered under Sections 406/ 409/ 419/ 420/ 423/ 424/ 467/ 468/471/477 (A)/120B/109/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1) (v) and 4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (c) and 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
13. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioners in Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions submits that cause of action of the criminal case is with respect of land acquisition for construction of ring road under Jharia Rehabilitation Development Authority and alleged embezzlement of money of compensation for land payable to the Scheduled Tribes raiyats which were deposited in the accounts of PACS (primary Agriculture cooperative society) which was alleged to have been misappropriated by different persons by getting blank cheques signed by the raiyats and payment made to the accused without proper identification and verification.
14. The specific case of the petitioners, is that, so far as above cause of action for filing criminal case is concerned, the Dhanbad police had already lodged an F.I.R. being Dhanbad (Dhansar) P.S. Case No. 398/2015 on 18.04.2015 under Sections 406/409/467/468/471/120B/109/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1) (v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act at the instance of District Land Acquisition Officer, Dhanbad on the basis of an enquiry committee report of the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad regarding discrepancy in 11 payment of compensation to the members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and its misappropriation and after investigation of Dhanbad (Dhansar) P.S. Case No. 398/2015 a charge sheet was filed against the accused person under Section 406/409/467/468/471/120B/109/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
15. Learned counsel further submits that the lodging of the Vigilance P.S. Case No. 30/2016 by the Anti Corruption Bureau is illegal and unwarranted, as the same has been done in violation and disobedience of the order of the Joint Secretary of the Cabinet Secretariat and Vigilance Department, Ranchi as the said authority vide letter No. 401 dated 03.03.2016 had clearly directed the Inspector General, Anti Corruption Bureau to take over the matter pertaining to all the five cases registered in different police stations at Dhanbad relating to land acquisition proceedings and other proceedings of construction of ring road and the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Ranchi was further directed to take steps as instructed.
16. The specific case of the petitioners in criminal miscellaneous cases is that the informant of the Vigilance case instead of taking charge of five Dhanbad/Dhansar P.S. cases, including Dhanbad (Dhansar) P.S. Case No. 398/2015, overlooked and disobeyed the order of his superior officer and his own department contained in orders dated 03.03.2016 and 04.03.2016 and lodged a fresh F.I.R. i.e. Vigilance P.S. Case No. 30 of 2016 on 20.04.2016 at Ranchi which was corresponding to allegation made in Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 398/2015. Similar is the situation with other Vigilance P.S. cases involved in these batch of cases. It is also stated in the petition that fresh F.I.R. has been lodged not only in violation of earlier orders issued by the department as contained in letter No. 401 dated 03.03.2016 but also for an occurrence which had taken place around 175 K.M. away in the North East direction at Dhanbad whereas the Vigilance Department had never directed to lodge a fresh case rather directed the informant to take over charge of the already instituted F.I.R. i.e. Dhanbad 12 (Dhansar) P.S. Case No. 398/2015 for further investigation of alleged acts and actions.
17. Learned counsel submits that for the same alleged offence/act or omission, two different cases have been instituted, one, Dhanbad (Dhansar) P.S. Case No. 398/2015, and the other, Vigilance P.S. Case No. 30/2016, that too in violation of directions issued by the department itself as contained in letter bearing No. 401 dated 03.03.2016 read with letter dated 04.03.2016. The learned counsel submits that the aforesaid filing of the 2nd FIR amounts to double jeopardy, against the rule of fair investigation and abuse of power by the Investigating Authority of the Anti Corruption Bureau and therefore the Vigilance P.S. Case No. 30/2016 is an abuse of the process of law which should be set aside.
18. Learned counsel in support of his argument has submitted that since Dhanbad P.S. Case was already registered, therefore the investigation which has been taken up by the Anti Corruption Bureau under the instruction of the State government and its departmental head is at best an act of further investigation of the respective Dhanbad P.S. case. Therefore, it is submitted that the investigation report, which is yet to be submitted by the Anti Corruption Bureau, can at best be taken as supplementary investigation in terms of Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. and accordingly supplementary charge sheet is to be submitted in corresponding Dhanbad P.S. Case.
19. He also submits that institution of the fresh case on the same set of allegation would enable the Anti Corruption Bureau to reinvestigate the case and such reinvestigation or fresh investigation is not permissible at the instance of the police and what is permissible is only further investigation. He submits that earlier investigation which has been conducted in Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 398/2015 cannot be wiped out and the petitioner cannot be asked to face the case under Dhanbad P.S. Case as well as Vigilance Case. He also submits that there can be no second F.I.R. and no fresh investigation with respect to the same offence.
20. Learned counsel refers to the following reported judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court: -
13I. (2001) 6 SCC 181 "T.T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala and Others and analogous cases" para 18,19,20,27 and 35 and the judgment reported in (2010) 12 SCC 254 "Babubhai v. State of Gujarat" para 14,21,19,20 and 45 to submit that in case of same transaction or same occurrence, having case and counter case, two F.I.R.s are permissible. He submits that in the instant case there is no such situation of case and counter case so as to permit two F.I.R.s in connection with the same offence.
II. (2013) 6 SCC 348 "Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another" para 57 and 58 to submit that F.I.R. is not an encyclopedia of the entire occurrence. Once an F.I.R. is lodged, all the connected event can be investigated by the police. He submits that in the said case initially there were allegation of encounter with respect to two persons on the basis of which the F.I.R. was instituted and subsequently there was an encounter of one of the witnesses of the case and to investigate the subsequent event another F.I.R. was instituted. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was of the view that the second F.I.R. could not have been instituted under such facts and circumstances of the said case.
III. (2014) 12 SCC 383 "Tara Singh Vs. State through Home Secretary, Uttarakhand" to submit that even if the name of the accused is not mentioned in the F.I.R., then also during investigation the name of the accused persons can come and he may be charge sheeted and even under such circumstances, second F.I.R. is not permissible under law.
IV. (2008) 2 SCC 383 "State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. A. S. Peter" to submit that the Anti-Corruption Bureau is not a different agency, rather it is an agency of the State Government itself so there is no question of lodging of the second F.I.R. with respect to the same occurrence.
V. (2009) 6 SCC 346 (Rama Choudhary vs. State of Bihar) para 15 to 22 to submit that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has elaborately dealt with the concept of re-investigation, fresh investigation and further 14 investigation. He submits that in the garb of filing the second F.I.R., informant of the Vigilance case has tried to re-investigate the case which is not permissible.
VI. (2008) 5 SCC 413 "Ramachandran v. R. Udhayakumar and Ors." paragraph 7 and 8 to submit that all investigation in the second F.I.R. should be treated as further investigation in the first case. VII. (2009) 1 SCC 441 "Nirmal Singh Kahlon Vs. State of Punjab and Others and analogous case" para 66,68 and 77 to submit that there is no dispute that the State can exercise power under Section 36 to hand over the investigation of the case to any other agency of the State.
21. The learned counsel submits that similar is the argument with respect to the other two Vigilance P.S. cases and corresponding Dhanbad/Dhansar P.S. Cases.
Argument of the petitioner in Cr.M.P. No. 1711 of 2018
22. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Cr.M.P. No. 1711 of 2018 submits that in this case a prayer has been made to quash the Vigilance P.S. Case No. 31 of 2016 as well as 32 of 2016 on the ground that for the same set of allegation, Vigilance P.S. Case No. 30 of 2016 was already instituted and pending. He submits that an alternative prayer has been made to amalgamate the three cases by referring to Section 220 of Cr.P.C. which provides for trial of accused in one case when more than one offence is committed by the same person. He also refers to Section 219 of Cr.P.C. which provides that when a person is charged with more than one offence of the same kind committed within one year, he may be tried in one trial for any number of them not exceeding three.
Argument of Anti Corruption Bureau
23. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Anti Corruption Bureau on the other hand opposes the prayer made by the petitioners in Criminal Misc. Petitions and submits that in the judgment passed by this court reported in (2017) 1 JLJR 406 (Md. Quiyamuddin Khan & Company through its Partner Quaser Khan Vs. The State of Jharkhand through 15 Vigilance) the principles with respect to maintainability of the second F.I.R. for the same incident has been considered by this Court. In the said case, initially the case was registered before the Regular police station and subsequently a second F.I.R. was lodged by the Anti Corruption Bureau. The learned counsel submits that this Court has considered the discovery of new facts and larger conspiracy part and held that the second F.I.R. would be maintainable when new discovery is made on factual foundation. In the said case, in the second F.I.R. besides clear allegation of larger conspiracy, allegations under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act was also added based on the report of the technical expert and thus the canvass of two F.I.R. and number of accused were found to be different. He submits that in the said case this court considered the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T.T. Antony (supra) as well as judgment passed in the case of Babubhai ( supra) and has referred to para 21 of the judgment passed in the case of Babubhai wherein it has been held that when two F.I.R.s are filed, in such a case the court has to examine the facts and circumstances giving rise to both the F.I.R.s and the test of sameness is to be applied to find out whether both the F.I.R.s 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 affirmative, the second F.I.R. is liable to be quashed. However, in case the contrary is proved, the version of the second F.I.R. is different, and they are in respect of two different incidents/crimes, the second F.I.R. is permissible.
Learned counsel submits that in the present case upon application of the aforesaid principle, second F.I.R. has to continue. The learned counsel also submits that the investigating officer of the vigilance case lodged the F.I.R. considering the much wider picture of the entire conspiracy involving land scam arising out of land acquisition cases in Dhanbad, disbursement of compensation involving defalcation and allegation under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, against Public Servants of different departments as well as involvement of middlemen. The Vigilance cases are still under investigation. He submits that the second F.I.R. covered 16 not only the ring road construction relating to JRDA but also other locations relating to land acquisition as per the direction of the cabinet Secretary of the State of Jharkhand.
24. The learned counsel submits that considering the fact that Dhanbad/Dhansar P.S. cases had some overlapping facts as well as some common accused in corresponding vigilance P.S. cases, a petition was filed before the learned court below in the concerned Dhanbad/ Dhansar P.S. cases to amalgamate them with corresponding Vigilance P.S. Case, but the prayer has been rejected by the learned court below which are the three orders impugned in W.P.(Cr.) No. 190/2016; 191/2016 and 221/2016. He submits that a prayer has also been made to close prosecution arising out of Dhanbad/Dhansar P.S. cases and every criminal prosecution arising out of the said cases be transferred to corresponding vigilance P.S. cases. However, during the course of arguments, the learned counsel for Anti Corruption Bureau also referred to the petition filed by them before the learned Court Below and the specific case of the Anti Corruption Bureau was as follows:-
"12. That it is pertinent to mention here that as per vigilance manual the ACB lodged an FIR having a very wide angle of the case, incorporating larger conspiracy involving huge number of public servants on 20.04.2016 bearing Vigilance P.S. Case No. 30/16 Under Sections 406, 409, 419, 420, 423, 424, 467, 468, 471, 474, 477(A)/120B/109/34 IPC, Section 3(1)(v)/4 of SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988".
Similar statements were made in the other two petitions also which are annexed with respective writ petitions.
Findings of this Court
25. In the judgment reported in (2008) 5 SCC 413 "Ramachandran v. R. Udhayakumar and Ors.", the High Court, vide order impugned before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, directed the Inspector General of Police to investigate the case afresh and file final report. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was of the view that instead of fresh investigation there could be further investigation if required under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. There is no doubt that there cannot be any fresh investigation for the same offence.
1726. The issue in the present case is whether the two cases i.e. case lodged in the regular police station and the case lodged in the vigilance police station are the same. This is to be examined on the basis of the other judicial pronouncements on the "test of sameness" as well as whether the second F.I.R was different version and new discovery was made on factual foundations and whether it was on a wider canvas involving conspiracy of a large number of persons and whether the second FIR falls within the ambit or scope of the first F.I.R.
27. In the case reported in (2009) 1 SCC 441 "Nirmal Singh Kahlon Vs. State of Punjab and Others and analogous case", the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the State has ultimate supervisory jurisdiction over an investigation for an offence and if it intends to handover further investigation, even after filing of the charge sheet, it may do so. It has been held that the State, as in terms of the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, and the Police Act, 1961, exercises two different and distinct jurisdiction. The power of supervision over investigation vested in the State in terms of Section 3 of Police Act, 1961 is absolute and said power of the State is wholly unrestricted by Section 36 of the Cr.P.C or otherwise. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, as logical corollary to the aforesaid, was of the view that, if by making preliminary enquiry pursuant to the notification issued by the State in terms of Section 6 of the Delhi Police Establishment Act, 1946, CBI comes to know of commission of other and further offence involving a larger conspiracy, which required prosecution against large number of persons, who were not proceeded against at all by the local police officers, even lodging of second F.I.R would not be a bar. The second F.I.R would be maintainable not only because there was different version and new discovery was made on factual foundations but also because the second F.I.R lodged by CBI was on a wider canvas involving conspiracy of a large number of persons. It was found in the case before the Hon'ble supreme court that after holding a detailed preliminary enquiry , CBI collected a large number of materials, recorded a large number of statements, enumerated as many as 15 categories of irregularities involving as many as 14 accused persons. An offence committed would not be judged by 18 mere mentioning of the sections, but the mode and manner in which the same was committed as also the nature thereof. In para 71 of the said judgement , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the power of the State under Section 3 of the Police Act, 1861 and Section 36 of Code of Criminal Procedure and has observed as follows:-
"71. We may, however, observe that the State as in terms of the provisions of the Code and the Act exercises two different and distinct jurisdictions. The power of supervision over investigation vested in the State in terms of Section 3 of the Police Act, 1861 is absolute. It may in a given case having regard to the nature and complexity of the offence may also direct that further investigation in the matter may be carried out by a Central agency. The State in terms of the special statute viz. the Act can always request CBI to make an investigation/further investigation. The said power of the State is wholly unrestricted by Section 36 of the Act or otherwise. As a logical corollary if while making preliminary inquiry pursuant to the notification issued by the State in terms of Section 6 of the Act, CBI comes to know of commission of other and further offence involving a larger conspiracy which required prosecution against a large number of persons who had not been proceeded against at all by the local police officers, we are of the opinion that even lodging of second FIR would not be a bar."
28. In the case of "Babubhai v. State of Gujarat", (2010) 12 SCC 254, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the law in connection with lodging of two FIRs right from para 13 to 19 dealing with the various earlier judicial pronouncements on the point including the judgement passed in the case of Ram Lal Narang reported in (1979) 2 SCC 322 , T.T. Antony reported in (2001) 6 SCC 181 , Upkar Singh versus Ved Prakash reported in (2004) 13 SCC 292 , Ramesh Chandra Nandlal Parikh versus State of Gujarat reported in (2006) 1 SCC 732 , Nirmal Singh Kahlon reported in (2009) 1 SCC 441 and gave the conclusion at para 20 and 21. The paragraphs 13 to 21 are quoted for ready reference:-
"Two FIRs
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 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 19 said case, the Court came to the conclusion that both conspiracies were not identical. Therefore, lodging of two FIRs was held to be permissible.
14. In T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala this Court dealt with a case wherein in respect of the same cognizable offence and same occurrence two FIRs had been lodged and the Court held that:
"There can be no second FIR and no fresh investigation on receipt of every subsequent information in respect of the same cognizable offence or same occurrence giving rise to one or more cognizable offences."
(emphasis supplied) The investigating agency has to proceed only on the information about commission of a cognizable offence which is first entered in the police station diary by the officer-in-charge under Section 158 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter called "CrPC") and all other subsequent information would be covered by Section 162 CrPC for the reason that it is the duty of the investigating officer not merely to investigate the cognizable offence reported in the FIR but also other connected offences found to have been committed in the course of the same transaction or the same occurrence and the investigating officer has to file one or more reports under Section 173 CrPC. Even after submission of the report under Section 173(2) CrPC, if the investigating officer comes across any further information pertaining to the same incident, he can make further investigation, but it is desirable that he must take the leave of the court and forward the further evidence, if any, with further report or reports under Section 173(8) CrPC. In case the officer receives more than one piece of information in respect of the same incident involving one or more than one cognizable offences such information cannot properly be treated as an FIR as it would, in effect, be a second FIR and the same is not in conformity with the scheme of CrPC.
15. The Court further observed as under: (T.T. Antony case, SCC p. 200, para
27) "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. ... 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 20 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."
(emphasis added)
16. In Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash, this Court considered the judgment in T.T. Antony and explained that the judgment in the said case does not exclude the registration of a complaint in the nature of counterclaim from the purview of the court. What had been laid down by this Court in the aforesaid case is that any further complaint by the same complainant against the same accused, subsequent to the registration of a case, is prohibited under CrPC because an investigation in this regard would have already started and further the complaint against the same accused will amount to an improvement on the facts mentioned in the original complaint, hence, will be prohibited under Section 162 CrPC. However, this rule will not apply to a counterclaim by the accused in the first complaint or on his behalf alleging a different version of the said incident. Thus, in case, there are rival versions in respect of the same episode, the investigating agency would take the same on two different FIRs and investigation can be carried under both of them by the same investigating agency and thus, filing an FIR pertaining to a counterclaim in respect of the same incident having a different version of events, is permissible.
17. In Rameshchandra Nandlal Parikh v. State of Gujarat this Court reconsidered the earlier judgment including T.T. Antony and held that in case the FIRs are not in respect of the same cognizable offence or the same occurrence giving rise to one or more cognizable offences nor are they alleged to have been committed in the course of the same transaction or the same occurrence as the one alleged in the first FIR, there is no prohibition in accepting the second FIR.
18. In Nirmal Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab this Court considered a case where an FIR had already been lodged on 14-6-2002 in respect of the offences committed by individuals. Subsequently, the matter was handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which during investigation collected huge amount of material and also recorded statements of large number of persons and CBI came to the conclusion that a scam was involved in the selection process of Panchayat Secretaries. The second FIR was lodged by CBI. This Court after appreciating the evidence, came to the conclusion that matter investigated by CBI dealt with a larger conspiracy. Therefore, this investigation has been on a much wider canvass and held that second FIR was permissible and required to be investigated.
19. The Court held as under: (Nirmal Singh Kahlon case, SCC pp. 466-67, para 67) "67. The second FIR, in our opinion, would be maintainable not only because there were different versions but when new discovery is made on factual foundations. Discoveries may be made by the police 21 authorities at a subsequent stage. Discovery about a larger conspiracy can also surface in another proceeding, as for example, in a case of this nature. If the police authorities did not make a fair investigation and left out conspiracy aspect of the matter from the purview of its investigation, in our opinion, as and when the same surfaced, it was open to the State and/or the High Court to direct investigation in respect of an offence which is distinct and separate from the one for which the FIR had already been lodged." (emphasis added)
20. Thus, in view of the above, the law on the subject emerges to the effect that an FIR under Section 154 CrPC 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 CrPC, as the case may be, and forwarding of a police report under Section 173 CrPC. Thus, it is quite possible that more than one piece of information be 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 CrPC.
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."
29. In the case of "Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. CBI", reported in (2013) 6 SCC 348 the Hon'ble Supreme court referred to the earlier writ petition, wherein a direction was issued to the CBI to take up the investigation as prayed accepting the contention that killing of Tulsiram Prajapati was a part of the same series of acts in which Sohrabuddin and Kausarbi were killed and, therefore, Tulsiram Prajapati encounter should also be investigated by CBI. Accepting the above assertion of CBI, the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed CBI to complete the investigation within six months. The CBI instituted a fresh FIR which was the subject matter in the case of 22 "Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. CBI", reported in (2013) 6 SCC 348. The summary of the judgement is in para 58 which is quoted as under:-
"Summary 58.1. This Court accepting the plea of CBI in Narmada Bai that killing of Tulsiram Prajapati is part of the same series of cognizable offence forming part of the first FIR directed CBI to "take over" the investigation and did not grant the relief prayed for i.e. registration of a fresh FIR. Accordingly, filing of a fresh FIR by CBI is contrary to various decisions of this Court. 58.2. .........
58.3. ...... Thus, there can be no second FIR and, consequently, 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.
58.4. Further, on receipt of information about a cognizable offence or an incident giving rise to a cognizable offence or offences and on entering FIR in the station house diary, the officer in charge of the police station has to investigate not merely the cognizable offence reported in the FIR but also other connected offences found to have been committed in the course of the same transaction or the same occurrence and file one or more reports as provided in Section 173 of the Code. Sub-section (8) of Section 173 of the Code empowers the police to make further investigation, obtain further evidence (both oral and documentary) and forward a further report(s) to the Magistrate. 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 underway or final report under Section 173(2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate, is liable to be interfered with by the High Court by exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code or under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution.
58.5. The first information report is a report which gives first information with regard to any offence. There cannot be second FIR in respect of the same offence/event because whenever any further information is received by the investigating agency, it is always in furtherance of the first FIR. 58.6.........
58.7. ........
58.8. Likewise, in the case on hand, initially CBI took a stand that the third person accompanying Sohrabuddin and Kausarbi was Kalimuddin. However, with the aid of further investigation, it unveiled that the third person was Tulsiram Prajapati. Therefore, only as a result of further investigation, CBI has gathered the information that the third person was Tulsiram Prajapati. Thus a 23 second FIR in the given facts and circumstances is unwarranted: instead filing of a supplementary charge-sheet in this regard will suffice the issue. 58.9. ...........
58.10. .........."
(Emphasis supplied)
30. In the judgment reported in (2013) 6 SCC 384 (Anju Choudhary Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh), the Hon'ble Supreme Court was of the view that there can be no F.I.R registered for the same offence and was also of the view that possibility of more than one piece of information being given to the officer incharge of police station in respect of the same incident involving one or more than one cognizable offences cannot be ruled out and it was held that other materials and information given to or received by the investigating officer would be statement covered under section 162 Cr.P.C. It was further held that, court in order to examine the impact of one or more F.I.R. has to rationalize the facts and circumstances of each case and then apply the test of sameness to find out whether both F.I.R.s relate to the same incident and to the same occurrence or whether the incidents are two or more parts of the same transaction or based upon distinct and different facts and whether its scope of enquiry is entirely different or not. It was also held that it will not be appropriate for the court to lay down one straight jacket formula uniformly applicable to all cases and this will always be a mixed question of law and facts depending upon the merits of a given case. It was clearly held that where the incident is separate, offences are similar or different or even where the subsequent crime is of such magnitude that does not fall within the ambit or scope of the F.I.R recorded first then a second F.I.R could be registered.
31. Considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Babubhai v. State of Gujarat, reported in (2010) 12 SCC 254 which has also been followed in the case of Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. CBI reported in (2013) 6 SCC 348, this Court has to examine the test of sameness of the two cases as laid down and summarized in para 21 of Babubhai v. State of Gujarat, reported in (2010) 12 SCC 254. However, in case, the second F.I.R gives a different version or involves discovery on factual foundations or the second F.I.R is on a wider canvas involving conspiracy of a large number of persons, the second FIR would be permissible.
2432. In the case reported in (2017) 8 SCC 1 "State of Jharkhand Vs. Lalu Prasad Yadav", the Hon'ble Supreme Court was of the view that the main question which was involved for consideration was whether in view of Article 20 (2) of the Constitution of India and Section 300 Cr.P.C, in the case before Hon'ble Supreme Court, was prosecution and punishment for the same offence more than once. The Hon'ble Supreme Court found that undoubtedly the general conspiracy was hatched for the period from 1988 to 1996 but defalcation was from different treasuries for different financial years for each of the district for the purposes of animal husbandry. The amount involved was different, fake vouchers, fake allotment letters, fake supply orders were prepared with the help of different sets of accused persons, though there was one general conspiracy, offences are distinct for different periods and the question which was posed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was whether there is one general conspiracy pursuant to which various defalcation or different amounts were made running into several years from different treasuries, by different set of accused persons and whether there could have been only one trial or more than one.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court clearly held that the Constitution bars double punishment for the same offence, but the conviction for such offence does not bar for subsequent trial and conviction for another offence and it does not matter even if some ingredients of the two offences are common. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also referred to Section 300 Cr.P.C which in turn refers to Section 220 and 221 of Cr.P.C, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was of the view that Section 220 (1) Cr.P.C provides that if one series of act is so connected together as to form the same transaction, more offences than one are committed by the same person, he may be charged with and tried at one trial for every such offence. It was also held that when a single act or a series of acts is of such a nature that it is doubtful ,which of the several offence, the facts which can be proved, would constitute, the accused may be charged with having committed all or any such offence and such charges can be tried together.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court was also of the view that there may be a conspiracy in general one and the separate one. There may be larger 25 conspiracy and smaller conspiracy which may develop in successive stages involving different accused persons and in the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court defalcation was made in various years by combination of different accused persons and thus it was held that there could be separate trials. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that there can be different trials for the same offence if tried under two different enactments altogether and comprised of two different offences under different acts\statutes without violation of the provision of Article 20 (2) or Section 300 Cr.P.C. The Hon'ble Supreme Court ultimately in para 30 to 37 held that separate trial is a rule and joint trial would be an irregular exercise of discretion if a court allows innumerable offences spread over a long period of time and committed by a large number of persons to be tried under the protecting wings and all- embracing conspiracy and if each or some of the offences can be tried separately it would be appropriate and lawful. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was also of the view that joint trial prolongs the trial and causes waste of judicial time and complicates the matter which might otherwise be simple and it would confuse the accused and cause prejudice to them. It was also held that the court should not be over jealous to provide a cover of conspiracy for a number of offences unless it is satisfied that the persons who committed separate offences were parties to the conspiracy and committed the separate acts pursuant to the conspiracy. When several offences are alleged to have been committed by several accused persons normal rule is separate trial. Further when parties are different, issue of estopped does not arise. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also made a distinction between a general conspiracy from a number of separate conspiracies having a similar general purpose. It was held that where different group of persons cooperate towards their separate ends without any privity with each other, each combination constitutes a separate conspiracy. The modus operandi being the same, would not make it a single offence, when the offences are separate. If a conspiracy is furthered into several distinct offences, there have to be separate trials.
33. The present cases are required to be examined in the light of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements.
2634. The background of Dhanbad (Dhansar) P.S. Case No. 398/2015 corresponding to G.R. No. 1793/2015 and Vigilance P.S. Case No. 30/2016 corresponding to Vigilance Case No. 32/2016 are as under:-
a. Pursuant to Letter dated 18.04.2015 issued by District Land Acquisition Officer, Dhanbad addressed to the Officer-in-charge of police station at Dhansar, the Dhanbad (Dhansar) P.S. Case No. 398/2015 corresponding to G.R. No. 1793/2015 was instituted on 18.04.2015.
It has been mentioned in the said FIR that a departmental enquiry of allegation of defalcation of the amount of compensation paid to the Raiyats in consideration of land to be acquired for the purpose of construction of Ring Road for Jharia Rehabilitation and Development Authority in Land Acquisition Case No. 31/08-09 and 06/10-11 was done as per order of the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad and after the enquiry following facts have come into light:-
Raiyat Sri Ganesh Murmu, stated that he has an account in Jorapokhar Pacs and was identified by Sri Bipin Kumar Rao and it is learnt that Rs. 63,70,000.00 (Sixty Three Lakh and Seventy Thousand Rupees) through cheques were deposited and he had no knowledge about such deposit and had not received any cheque from the Office of Land Acquisition. He had not given any cheque in favour of any person mentioned in the FIR but Bipin Kumar Rao, who impersonated himself as an Officer of Land Acquisition Office, had obtained his signature on a plain paper as well as on a blank cheque and in consideration of the same he had given him Rs. 90,000.00.
Sri Rasik Murmu, (Sri Murmu) stated that he has an account in Jorapokhar Pacs which was opened after the identification by Sri Bipin Kumar Rao in which Rs. 27,00,000.00 (Twenty Seven Lakh Rupees) vide cheque was deposited and the amount has been withdrawn by the other persons named in the FIR. It is stated that Alok Bariar (accused) has obtained his signature on a plain paper and in consideration of the same Sri Alok Bariar had given him only Rs. 3,00,000.00.
Sri Dev Raj Murmu, stated that he has an account in Jorapokhar Pacs which was opened upon the identification of Sri Bipin Kumar Rao in which an amount of Rs. 1,49,04,000/- through cheques have been deposited. The money was withdrawn from his account by the persons mentioned in the FIR. Dev Raj Murmu is mentally insane and it is stated by his family members that he has neither withdrawn 27 the amount nor has given cheques to anyone but Bipin Kumar Rao gave Rs. 96,000.00 after obtaining signature on blank cheque. Sri Sitaram Marandi stated that he has an account in Jorapokhar Pacs which was opened upon the identification of Sri Anil Kumar in which Rs. 83,17,000.00 were deposited through cheques. He stated that he has not given cheque to the persons mentioned in the FIR and Alok Bariar obtained his signature on blank cheque and gave him some amount of money which he does not remember.
Sri Jaideo Manjhi, stated that he has an account in Jorapokhar Pacs which was opened upon the identification made by a joint account holder (accused persons) in which Rs. 86,40,000.00 has been deposited through cheques. These amounts were withdrawn by person named Bipin Kumar, Anil Kumar, Manav Chaterjee and Rashmi Devi. It is stated by Jaideo Manjhi that Anil Kumar obtained his signature on blank cheque and has given Rs. 40,000.00. Sri Shyamlal Hansda, stated that he had Account in Jorapokhar Pacs which was opened upon the identification by Alok Bariar in which Rs. 3,00,32,290.94 was deposited vide cheque. He has stated that Alok Bariar has withdrawn the amount after obtaining signature on a plain paper.
Sri Ganesh Tudu, stated that Account in Jorapokhar Pacs belongs to him was opened upon the identification made by Sanjay Kumar Mahto in which an amount of 3,32,34,000.00 has been deposited by cheque. This amount has been withdrawn on different dates. Sri Sukhlal Marandi, stated that Account in Jorapokhar Pacs belongs to him. On 11.08.2012 and 05.09.2012 the account holder has deposited B.O.I. Dhanbad's cheque no. 000365 and cheque no. 000367 amounting Rs. 12,96,000.00 and 23,76,000.00 respectively. Against the aforesaid deposit the account holder on 06.08.2012, 07.08.2012 and 08.08.2012 through Self Cheque No. 007561, 007562 and 007563 made O.D. payment amounting Rs. 3,00,000.00, Rs. 3,00,000.00 and 6,96,000.00 respectively. On 08.08.2012 O.D. balance shows Rs. 12,96,000.00. The O.D. of Rs. 12.96 Lakh in a Saving Account is out of the jurisdiction of the Manager. There is signature of the account holder on the front page and back page of the cheque and back page also bears the signature of co-accused persons whose names are printed in the computerized print of the account statement. On 03.09.2012, 03.10.2012 and 05.10.2012 through Self Cheque No. 007564, 007565 and 007566 amount of Rs. 15,00,000.00, Rs. 2,00,000.00 and Rs. 6,76,000.00 respectively have been paid. The front page and back page of the cheque bear the signature of the account holder; and the back page also bears the signatures of co-accused .28
on the basis of document received from the bank and the statements of the Raiyats it is alleged that the cheques received from the Office of Land Acquisition was deposited in the accounts of the Pacs and the amounts were withdrawn by different persons after obtaining signatures of the Raiyats on blank cheques. The payment of such a huge amount should not have been made without proper identification and the payment of the amount should have been made only after proper verification, which had not been done by the Branch Manager. It is alleged that the concerned Adivasi Raiyats did not receive the entire amount of compensation and the amount has been grabbed after withdrawing the same by the persons named in the Enquiry Report and in number of cases, the amount of compensation has been paid as O.D. by the Branch Manager, Jorapokhar Pacs, Dhansar before clearance of the cheques despite they being Account Payee Cheques.
b. A letter no. 3157 dated 07.07.2015 was issued by the Government of Jharkhand to conduct a vigilance enquiry in connection with embezzlement of compensation amount in various circles of district of Dhanbad .
c. A letter dated 09.07.2015 was issued directing that the enquiry report should be filed within a period of three months. d. Preliminary enquiry no. 16/2015 dated 10.07.2015 was instituted and a detailed report was to be submitted.
e. Anti Corruption Bureau vide letter no. 8166 dated 07.08.2015 had asked for handing over the investigation to Anti Corruption Bureau of a total number of five cases instituted in the district of Dhanbad under various police stations relating to land acquisition. f. In the mean time, the final form was filed in Dhanbad (Dhansar) P.S. Case No. 398/2015 on 29.01.2016. This is apparent from the perusal of order dated 01.08.2019 passed in this case . g. Again, instead of making elaborate enquiry pursuant to aforesaid letter dated 07.07.2015, a letter no. 1784 dated 24.02.2016 was issued by the Anti Corruption Bureau again asking for handing over the entire investigation in connection with the five cases registered in the district of Dhanbad relating to land acquisition which certainly included Dhanbad (Dhansar) P.S. Case No. 398/2015. The contents of aforesaid letter dated 07.07.2015, 09.07.2015, 07.08.2015, 24.02.2016 and preliminary enquiry no. 16/15 dated 10.07.2015 is mentioned in letter no. 401 dated 03.03.2016 annexed with the petitions. Upon perusal of the contents of those communications, it is apparent that the government wanted an elaborate and detailed enquiry to be conducted irrespective of any FIR having been lodged earlier. Thus the scope of proposed enquiry was much wider as compared to 29 what was covered by the five cases registered in the local police stations.
h. letter No. 401 dated 03.03.2016 was issued by the Joint Secretary of the Government of Jharkhand and addressed to the Inspector General of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Jharkhand, Ranchi mentioning about the aforesaid communications and asking the Anti Corruption Bureau to enquire into the entire allegations. The said letter clearly mentioned that in spite of repeated request made by the Government, the investigation was being delayed. However, considering the repeated requests made by the Anti Corruption Bureau to handover investigation of the five cases registered in local police stations, a direction was issued by the Government to hand over investigation of all the five cases instituted by the local police relating to the land acquisition matters at Dhanbad concerning ring road.
i. From order dated 27.05.2016 passed in G.R. Case No. 1793 of 2015 arising out of Dhanbad (Dhansar) P.S. Case No. 398/2015 , which is the impugned order in W.P.(Cr.) 191/2016, it appears that pursuant to the order passed by the state government contained in letter No. 401 dated 03.03.2016, the Anti Corruption Bureau formally took charge of the investigation of Dhanbad (Dhansar) P.S. Case No. 398/2015 on 02.05.2016 although by this time the final form was already submitted on 29.01.2016 as is reflecting in order dated 01.08.2019 passed in these batch cases.
j. This Court finds that as per preliminary enquiry by the Anti Corruption Bureau, much wider allegations came to light that in the commission of offence, two groups were involved.
The first group was consisting of the land dealer Anil Kumar Sinha along with Alok Bariar @ Jacky Lal, Bipin Kumar Rao, Anil Kumar Mahato and Arun Chandra Mandal, Sakhi Chandra Mahato and Anup Kumar Mahato from Chandmari Pacs.
The other group involved in the commission of offence was the employees of B.C.C.L. namely, Rajendra Prasad, Narayan Singh, Jai Niwas Pandey @ Shastri, Amin namely Sadhu Saran Pathak and one person of Jharia namely Ram Kumar Gupta.
It was found that these two groups of persons, in connivance with the various employees of the Land Acquisition Office, including the Land Acquisition Officer Shri Lal Mohan Nayak and Uday Kant Pathak and the then daily Amin Shri Harish Kumar, clerk Smt. Anupama Kumari and the then Kanungo Shri Mithilesh Kumar, had embezzled and defalcated the compensation amount arising out of Land Acquisition.
30It was alleged that in the entire scam, the role of Revenue, Registration and other departments of the government was found doubtful.
It was also alleged that the accused had used forged documents and have misused their official position. They entered into conspiracy with the middlemen and thereby, cheated the poor illiterate Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes villagers and have embezzled their compensation amount. It was also alleged that they have caused illegal loss to the actual persons who were entitled to the compensation amount and thus, to the Government. In this back ground, a request was made by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Jharkhand, Ranchi to institute a case against all the accused persons who were named in the said F.I.R.
k. Consequently, an F.I.R. being Vigilance P.S. Case No. 30 of 2016 dated 20.04.2016 was instituted under Sections 406,409,419,420,423,424,467,468,471,474,477A, 120B/109/34 of I.P.C., Section 3(1)(v) and 4 of the S.C & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 13(2) read along with Section 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
l. Till date the investigation of the Vigilance P.S. Case No. 30 of 2016 dated 20.04.2016 has not been completed and final form is still awaited.
m. The Anti-Corruption Bureau filed a petition dated 27.05.2016 in G.R. Case No. 1793 of 2015 arising out of Dhanbad (Dhansar) P.S. Case No. 398/2015 mentioning therein that a FIR has been instituted by Anti Corruption Bureau being Vigilance P.S. Case No. 30/2016 incorporating larger conspiracy involving huge number of public servants and a prayer was made to either transfer or merge the case with Vigilance P.S. Case No. 30/2016 corresponding to Special (vigilance ) case no. 32/2016. The said prayer of Anti-corruption bureau was rejected by the learned court below vide order dated 27.05.2016 passed in G.R. Case No. 1793 of 2015 arising out of Dhanbad (Dhansar) P.S. Case No. 398/2015 which is impugned order in W.P.(Cr) no. 191/2016 filed by the Anti-Corruption Bureau.
35. The background of Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 657/2015 corresponding to G.R. No. 2849/2015 and special case no. 24/2015 and Vigilance P.S. Case No. 31/2016 corresponding to Special (Vig.) Case No. 33/2016 are as under:-
a. Vide Letter no 540 dated 23.06.2015 issued by the District Land Acquisition Officer, Dhanbad addressed to the Officer-in-charge of 31 police station at Dhanbad, the Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 657/2015 was instituted on 23.06.2015.
Gross irregularity in payment of the amount of compensation in land acquisition under mauza Tilatand was reported on the basis of the enquiry report received from the Settlement Officer, Dhanbad that the payment of large amount in form of compensation was made arbitrarily without fulfilling process of land acquisition and without possession of land by J.R.D.A. It was alleged that the amount of compensation paid has been grabbed by certain people by withdrawal from the accounts of Raiyats of Scheduled Tribe in Jorapokhar Pacs, Dhansar.
Requisition for acquiring 59.41 acres of land in Mauza Tilatand, was received from Jharia Rehabilitation and Development Authority and Land Acquisition Case No.-6/10-11 was initiated. The then Land Acquisition Officer Sri Uday Kant Pathak had given order to make payment of compensation to total 15 Raiyats. After enquiry, it came into light that procedures as per rule has not been complied prior to payment of the amount of compensation. In this matter, order was given by the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad for acquisition of land under the simple process, but violating this order, payment was made under the extra-ordinary process. Besides this, neither approval for fixation of rate was obtained nor award was declared and order was given to make payment to the 15 Raiyats. Thereafter, due to non-declaration of award within period of two years from the last date of publication of notification i.e. 02.10.2011, the proceeding on record was declared lapsed on 04.10.2013. It was alleged on the basis of the Enquiry Report that certain people had usurped the amount of compensation paid by withdrawing it from the accounts of Raiyats belonging to Scheduled Tribe in Jorapokhar Pacs, Dhansar.
b. A letter no. 3157 dated 07.07.2015 was issued by the Government of Jharkhand to conduct a vigilance enquiry in connection with embezzlement of compensation amount in various circles of district of Dhanbad .
c. A letter dated 09.07.2015 was issued directing that the enquiry report should be filed within a period of three months. d. Preliminary enquiry no. 16/2015 dated 10.07.2015 was instituted and a detailed report was to be submitted. e. Anti Corruption Bureau vide letter no. 8166 dated 07.08.2015 had asked for handing over the investigation to Anti Corruption Bureau of a total number of five cases instituted in the district of Dhanbad under various police stations relating to land acquisition.32
f. In the mean time the final form was filed in Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 657/2015 on 27.11.2015 . This is apparent from the perusal of order dated 01.08.2019 passed in this case .
g. Again, instead of making elaborate enquiry pursuant to aforesaid letter dated 07.07.2015, a letter no. 1784 dated 24.02.2016 was issued by the Anti Corruption Bureau again asking for handing over the entire investigation in connection with the five cases registered in the district of Dhanbad relating to land acquisition which certainly included Dhanbad (Dhansar) P.S. Case No. 657/2015. The contents of aforesaid letters dated 07.07.2015, 09.07.2015, 07.08.2015, 24.02.2016 and preliminary enquiry no. 16/15 dated 10.07.2015 is mentioned in letter no. 401 dated 03.03.2016 annexed with the petitions. Upon perusal of the contents of those communications, it is apparent that the government wanted an elaborate and detailed enquiry to be conducted irrespective of any FIR having been lodged earlier. Thus, the scope of proposed enquiry was much wider as compared to what was covered by the five cases registered in the local police stations.
h. letter No. 401 dated 03.03.2016 was issued by the Joint Secretary of the Government of Jharkhand and addressed to the Inspector General of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Jharkhand, Ranchi mentioning about the aforesaid communications and asked the Anti Corruption Bureau to enquire into the entire allegations. The said letter clearly mentioned that in spite of repeated request made by the Government, the investigation was being delayed. However, considering the repeated requests made by the Anti corruption bureau to hand over investigation of the five cases registered in local police stations, a direction was issued by the Government to hand over investigation of all the five cases instituted by the local police relating to the land acquisition matters at Dhanbad concerning ring road.
i. From order dated 18.06.2016 passed in Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 657/2015 , which is the impugned order in W.P.(Cr.) 190/2016, it appears that pursuant to the order passed by the State Government contained in letter No. 401 dated 03.03.2016, the Anti Corruption Bureau formally just took charge of the investigation of Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 657/2015 although by this time the final form was already submitted on 27.11.2015 as is apparent from order dated 01.08.2019 passed in this case.
j. This Court finds that as per preliminary enquiry by the Anti Corruption Bureau, much wider allegations came to light that huge amount to the extent of Rs.20.24 crores was defalcated in connection with land acquisition in Tilatand Residential Scheme without 33 following the procedure for land acquisition . The accused persons included the officers of the land acquisition department , employees of Jorapokhar Pacs branch, Chandmari , a number of middle men , employees of BCCL and also those persons who had withdrawn the amount by making their signature on the back of the cheques . It was also alleged that the accused persons were involved in forgery and defalcation of huge amount as a part of conspiracy with the middlemen to deprive the poor tribals of their money. It was also alleged that the accused had used forged documents and have misused their official position. They entered into conspiracy with the middlemen and thereby, cheated the poor illiterate Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes villagers and have embezzled their compensation amount. It was also alleged that they have caused illegal loss to the actual persons who were entitled to the compensation amount and thus, to the Government. In this back ground, a request was made by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Jharkhand, Ranchi to institute a case against all the accused persons who were named in the said F.I.R.
k. Consequently, an F.I.R. being Vigilance P.S. Case No. 31 of 2016 dated 20.04.2016 was instituted under Sections 406,409,419,420,423,424,467,468,471,474,477A, 120B/109/34 of I.P.C., Section 3(1)(v) and 4 of the S.C & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 13(2) read along with Section 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
l. Till date the investigation of the Vigilance P.S. Case No. 31 of 2016 dated 20.04.2016 has not been completed and final form is still awaited.
m. The Anti-Corruption Bureau filed a petition dated 27.05.2016 in G.R. Case No. 2849 of 2015 arising out of Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 657/2015 mentioning therein that a FIR has been instituted by Anti Corruption Bureau being vigilance P.S. Case No. 31/2016 incorporating larger conspiracy involving huge number of public servants and a prayer was made to either transfer or merge the case with Vigilance P.S. Case No. 31/2016 corresponding to Special (vigilance ) Case No. 33/2016. The said prayer of Anti-corruption bureau was rejected by the learned court below vide order dated 18.06.2016 passed in Special SC/ST case no. 24 of 2015 arising out of Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 657/2015 which is impugned order in W.P.(Cr) no. 190/2016 filed by the Anti-Corruption Bureau.
36. The background of Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 212 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. No. 2849/2015 and special case no. 24/2015 and 34 Vigilance P.S. Case No. 32/2016 corresponding to Special (Vig.) Case No. 34/2016 are as under:-
i. Vide Letter No. 221 dated 23.02.2016 issued by the District Land Acquisition Officer, Dhanbad and addressed to the officer in- charge Dhanbad police station, FIR was registered in connection with receiving the amount of compensation of land acquisition on the basis of forged deeds.
It was stated that that the process of land acquisition was done for the construction of Ring Road in mauza Dhanbad as well as mauza Duhatand falling under Dhanbad P.S. having Record No. 32/2008-09 and 31/2008-09 respectively. The amount of compensation upon the land acquisition has been paid to the affected Raiyats. In the course of time, information was received about forged deeds of some Raiyats out of the Raiyats who got compensation and its enquiry was made by a Committee. A detailed report was prepared by a Committee after going through the documents received from the concerned interested Raiyats, objection application and revenue documents of the land under acquisition, and it was made available to the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad vide letter dated 09.09.2015 of the Additional Collector, Dhanbad. On perusal of the report, it appeared that some of the persons have got compensation in consideration of the land under acquisition by submitting forged documents of the lands under acquisition. Detailed report is as under:-
a. Sri Narsingh Das produced Sale Deed No. 25560 dated 21.10.70 showing himself as buyer of land under mauza Dhanbad having Mauza No. 51, Khata No. 121 and Plot No. 1630. On the basis of this deed, Award No. 14 has been prepared against his name and he has received total amount of compensation of Rs.
4,68,93,585.99 through cheques and in course of verification, the sale deed produced above was found forged.
b. Sri Mantu Mahto and Hari Mahto, had produced Sale-Deed No. 26388 dated 06.10.1970 of the land under mauza Dhanbad having Mauza No. 51, Khata No. 38 and Plot No. 1573 showing Sri Goving Mahto as purchaser. Award No. 17 has been prepared in the name of Mantu Mahto and Hari Mahto, the two sons of the buyer of this deed and they have received total amount of compensation of Rs. 35,32,800.00 through cheques and in course of the verification, the aforesaid produced deed is found forged.
c. Mantu Mahto, Hari Mahto, S/o Govind Mahto, R/o Dhanbad have produced Sale-Deed No. 26389 dated 06.10.1970 of mauza Dhanbad, Mauza No. 51, Khata No. 75 and Plot No. 1812 and 35 showing the name of seller as Sri Govind Mahto, S/o Fagu Mahto. Award No. 18 has been prepared in the name of Mantu Mahto and Hari Mahto, the two sons of the buyer of this deed and total amount of compensation of Rs. 35,32,800.00 through cheques and in course of the verification, the aforesaid produced deed is found forged.
d. Sri Vishwanath Sharma, S/o Yamuna Sharma, R/o Dhanbad has produced Sale-Deed No. 25562 dated 21.10.1970 showing buyer as Sri Vishwanath Sharma, S/o Yamuna Sharma of Plot No. 1628, 1629, Khata No. 130, Mauza No. 51 and Mauza Dhanbad. On the basis of this deed, Award No. 13 has been prepared against his name and he has received total amount of compensation of Rs. 4,64,80,577.94 through cheques and in course of verification, the sale deed produced was found forged.
e. Sri Vishwanath Sharma, S/o Yamuna Sharma, R/o Dhanbad has produced Sale-Deed No.25563 dated 21.10.1970, in which Sri Vishwanath Sharma, S/o Yamuna Sharma has been shown as the buyer of Plot No. 1627, Khata No. 121, Mauza No. 51 and Mauza Dhanbad. On the basis of this deed, Award No. 12 has been prepared against his name and he has received total amount of Rs. 3,53,25,239.23 as compensation through cheques and in course of verification, the aforesaid deed was found forged.
f. Sri Bhola Singh, S/o Sahay Singh, R/o Duhatand has produced Sale-Deed No. 25590 dated 27.10.1970 showing purchaser as Sri Bhola Singh, S/o Sahay Singh of Plot No. 901, Khata No. 189, Mauza No. 47 and Mauza Duhatand. On the basis of this deed, Award No. 26 has been prepared and total amount Rs. 60,48,000.00 has been received as compensation through cheques and in course of the verification, the aforesaid produced deed is found forged.
It has been alleged that in all the aforesaid cases, the above mentioned persons have received compensation of the land under acquisition illegally by producing forged Sale-Deed in the office, which is a punishable offence.
It was also alleged that in addition to the aforesaid, the schedule of the land was prepared on the basis of above mentioned forged Sale- Deeds in the supervision of the then Kanungo Sri Mithilesh Kumar posted in the office upon the direction of District Land Acquisition Officer Sri Lal Mohan Nayak. The payment against all the aforesaid awards was made by two District Land Acquisition Officers, Dhanbad namely 1. Sri Lal Mohan Nayak and 2. Sri Uday Kant Pathak from time to time.
The case was registered under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B and 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(v)/4 of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
36ii. A letter no. 3157 dated 07.07.2015 was issued by the Government of Jharkhand to conduct a vigilance enquiry in connection with embezzlement of compensation amount in various circles of district of Dhanbad .
iii. A letter dated 09.07.2015 was issued directing that the enquiry report should be filed within a period of three months.
iv. Preliminary enquiry no. 16/2015 dated 10.07.2015 was instituted and a detailed report was to be submitted.
v. Anti Corruption Bureau vide letter no. 8166 dated 07.08.2015 had asked for handing over the investigation to Anti Corruption Bureau of a total number of five cases instituted in the district of Dhanbad under various police stations relating to land acquisition. vi. Again, instead of making elaborate enquiry pursuant to aforesaid letter dated 07.07.2015, a letter no. 1784 dated 24.02.2016 was issued by the Anti Corruption Bureau again asking for handing over the entire investigation in connection with the five cases registered in the district of Dhanbad relating to land acquisition which certainly included Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 212 of 2016. The contents of aforesaid letters dated 07.07.2015, 09.07.2015, 07.08.2015, 24.02.2016 and preliminary enquiry no. 16/15 dated 10.07.2015 is mentioned in letter no. 401 dated 03.03.2016 annexed with the petitions. Upon perusal of the contents of those communications, it is apparent that the government wanted an elaborate and detailed enquiry to be conducted irrespective of any FIR having been lodged earlier. Thus, the scope of proposed enquiry was much wider as compared to what was covered by the five cases registered in the local police stations. vii. letter No. 401 dated 03.03.2016 was issued by the Joint Secretary of the Government of Jharkhand and addressed to the Inspector General of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Jharkhand, Ranchi mentioning about the aforesaid communications and asked the Anti Corruption Bureau to enquire into the entire allegations. The said letter clearly mentioned that in spite of repeated request made by the Government, the investigation was being delayed. However, considering the repeated requests made by the Anti corruption bureau to hand over investigation of the five cases registered in local police stations, a direction was issued by the Government to hand over investigation of all the five cases instituted by the local police relating to the land acquisition matters at Dhanbad concerning ring road.
viii. From order dated 25.05.2016 passed in Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 212 of 2016 , which is the impugned order in W.P.(Cr.) 221/2016, it appears that pursuant to the order passed by the state government contained 37 in letter No. 401 dated 03.03.2016, the Anti Corruption Bureau was handed over the investigation of Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 212 of 2016 and the final form was awaited.
ix. Vigilance P.S. Case No. 32/2016 was instituted on the basis of a
letter dated 31.03.2016 issued by
Police Inspector, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Jharkhand, Ranchi to the officer incharge of the vigilance police station by referring to aforesaid communication and initiation of preliminary enquiry no. 16/15 dated 10.07.2015. It has been alleged by the informant of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 32/2016 that on perusal of land acquisition records, the act of violation of the rule by the then Officers/employees of Land Acquisition Office resulted in the loss of government revenue. It has also come into light that the officers and employees of Dhanbad Land Acquisition Office in connivance of the middle men, under conspiracy, grabbed the amount of compensation of the original Raiyats on the basis of forged deed or helped in illegal payment and have misappropriated the government money. The fact regarding registration of Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 212/16 dated 23.02.2016 was also mentioned which was registered u/s 406/409/420/467/468/471/120 (B)/34 of the IPC and u/s 3 (I) (v)/4 of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1988 against the accused named in the said case and alleged that the accused had helped by misusing their official position.
On the basis of documents received from interested Raiyats of land under acquisition at Mauza Dhanbad, Manaitand and Duhatand and document of revenue etc., the Committee has reported in enquiry report that several documents of these Mauza have been executed after notification for the land acquisition, some Raiyats have been given amount of compensation more than that of the acquired land, link deed of several purchasers related to Khatiyani Raiyat is missing and the other persons are also claiming on some land under acquisition. Khata number of land under acquisition related to Ring Road and plot wise opinion was enclosed with the Enquiry Report.
In the course of enquiry, the villagers told that the amount of compensation in connection with their property has been grabbed by preparing forged deed of their Raiyati land in connivance with Officers/employees of government departments.
It has been alleged in the FIR filed by anti-corruption bureau that besides the aforesaid accused, the role of some other persons and public servants, in conspiracy of defalcation of the amount of compensation on basis of forged deeds and documents appear to be suspicious. It is alleged that these are cognizable and punishable offence u/s 406/409/419/420/423/424/467/468/471/120(B)/34 of 38 the IPC and u/s 3 (1) (v)/4 of Prevention of Atrocities against Scheduled Castes/Tribes Act as well as u/s 13 (2) read with u/s 13 (1) (c) and 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the persons accused of Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 212/2016 and others and consequently a request was made to register a regular case under various Acts and Sections against the aforesaid named accused persons and others.
It was also alleged that the accused had entered into conspiracy with the middlemen and thereby, cheated the poor illiterate Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes villagers and have embezzled their compensation amount. It was also alleged that they have caused illegal loss to the actual persons who were entitled to the compensation amount and thus, to the Government.
Consequently, an F.I.R. being Vigilance P.S. Case No. 32 of 2016 dated 21.04.2016 was instituted under Sections 406,409,419,420,423,424,467,468,471,474,477A, 120B/109/34 of I.P.C., Section 3(1)(v) and 4 of the S.C & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 13(2) read along with Section 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The allegation in Vigilance P.S. Case No. 32 of 2016 indicated much wider allegation when compared to corresponding Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 212 of 2016 .
x. Till date the investigation of the Vigilance P.S. Case No. 32 of 2016 dated 21.04.2016 has not been completed and final form is still awaited.
xi. The Anti-Corruption Bureau filed a petition dated 25.05.2016 in G.R. Case No. 759 of 2016 arising out of Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 212 of 2016 mentioning therein that a FIR has been instituted by Anti Corruption Bureau being vigilance P.S. Case No. 32/2016 incorporating larger conspiracy involving huge number of public servants and a prayer was made to either transfer or merge the case with Vigilance P.S. Case No. 32/2016 corresponding to Special (vigilance ) case no. 34/2016. The said prayer of Anti-corruption bureau was rejected by the learned court below vide order dated 25.05.2016 passed in G.R. Case no. 759 of 2016 arising out of Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 212 of 2016 which is impugned order in W.P.(Cr) no. 221/2016 filed by the Anti-Corruption Bureau.
W.P(Cr) No. 190/2016; 191/2016 and 221/2016
37. So far as the three writ petitions filed by Anti Corruption Bureau are concerned , they arise out of the order passed in three Dhanbad/Dhansar police station cases, involved in the present batch of cases, and by the impugned order passed in each of the case the prayer of the Anti 39 Corruption Bureau for transfer/merger of the Dhanbad/Dhansar P.S. case with corresponding Vigilance P.S case has been rejected by stating that the learned court below has no jurisdiction to pass such an order despite the fact that the Anti Corruption Bureau had taken up the investigation of the Dhanbad/Dhansar P.S. case after institution of the vigilance P.S case and the learned court below has no jurisdiction either to merge the Dhanbad/Dhansar P.S. case or to transfer the same to the court of Special Judge at Ranchi where the vigilance P.S case was pending at the relevant point of time. It is important to note that the Anti-Corruption Bureau in their petitions filed before the learned court below had clearly stated that as per the vigilance manual , the Anti-Corruption Bureau lodged an FIR having a very wide angle of the case , incorporating larger conspiracy involving huge number of public servants though the Anti-Corruption Bureau formally took charge of further investigation of Dhanbad/Dhansar P.S. case.
38. This Court is of the considered view that the learned court below has rightly rejected the petition filed in all the three cases as the learned court below has no jurisdiction to pass such an order when the two cases are pending in different districts.
39. However, a prayer has been made in the writ petitions which have been filed by Anti-Corruption Bureau to pass necessary order for transfer or merger of the two cases.
40. This Court finds that in the vigilance P.S cases the investigation is not yet complete and as recorded in order dated 01.08.2019 passed in this case, it appears that final form has already been filed in Dhanbad( Dhansar) P.S case no. 398/2015 and also in Dhanbad( Dhansar) P.S case no. 657/2015. It also appears from the said order dated 01.08.2019 that Dhanbad (Dhansar) P.S case no. 398/2015 was initially registered under section 406/420 of IPC and subsequently sections 467,468,471,120B/34 of IPC was added and thereafter section 409 IPC and section 3(1)(v) /4 of schedule caste and schedule (prevention of atrocities) act was also added. It further appears from the said order dated 01.08.2019 that Dhanbad (Dhansar) P.S case no. 657/2015 was initially registered under section 40 406/409/420/34 of IPC and subsequently section 467,468,471,120B of IPC was added and thereafter section 3(1)(v) /4 of Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was also added. The investigations in both the cases are also complete.
41. This Court is of the considered view that it would not be in the interest of justice to allow the prayer for merger of the Dhanbad/Dhansar P.S. cases with that of corresponding vigilance P.S cases instituted subsequently and investigating wider criminal conspiracies and offences as the charge-sheet in the vigilance P.S cases have not yet been filed and the investigation is going on. There could also be a situation where some more persons may be made accused during investigation in the conspiracies involved in the cases over and above those who are already accused. In the judgement reported in (1979) 2 SCC 322 ( Ram Lal Narang) it has been held in para 22 that there may be occasions when a second investigation started independently of the first one may disclose a wide range of offences including those covered by the first investigation . In such circumstances , where the report of the second investigation is submitted to a magistrate other than the magistrate who has already taken cognizance of the first case , it is upon the prosecuting agency or the accused to take necessary action to move the appropriate superior court to have the two cases tried together. This Court is of the considered view that in the present cases the aforesaid stage has not yet arrived as the investigations are not yet complete in the vigilance P.S Cases.
42. This Court finds that as per the Anti-Corruption Bureau itself the vigilance P.S cases were instituted to consider the much wider scope of the criminal acts relating to various land acquisition cases as compared to what was pointed out in the corresponding cases lodged in Dhanbad/ Dhansar police station. The vigilance P.S cases have much wider base of the criminal offence , and it apparently covers many more victims , many more accused including many more public servants , many more smaller and larger conspiracies , role of middlemen , different groups of persons committing numerous and distinct offences etc.. At this stage, it is not clear as to whether one accused is involved in more than one illegal 41 transactions as the investigation of the vigilance cases are still going on and charge-sheet is yet to be submitted and vide order dated 01.08.2019 interim relief of no coercive steps against the petitioners of the criminal miscellaneous petitions was extended with a clear direction that if they are summoned to join the investigation by the Anti Corruption Bureau, they will join the investigation. The letter nos. 283/19 and 285/19, both dated 17.11.2019 issued from the court of District and Additional Sessions Judge-II cum Special Judge, Anti Corruption Bureau, Dhanbad indicate that the vigilance cases have been transferred from court at Ranchi to the concerned court at Dhanbad.
43. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances the writ petitions being W.P(Cr) No. 190/2016; 191/2016 and 221/2016 filed by the Anti Corruption Bureau are dismissed.
Cr. M.P. No. 2490 of 2016, Cr. M.P. No. 1181 of 2016, Cr. M.P. No. 1459 of 2018, Cr. M.P. No. 1557 of 2016, Cr. M.P. No. 1797 of 2016, Cr. M.P. No. 1182 of 2016, Cr. M.P. No. 1562 of 2016, Cr. M.P. No. 2489 of 2016, Cr. M.P. No. 3591 of 2017, Cr. M.P. No. 3644 of 2017, Cr. M.P. No. 3730 of 2017, Cr. M.P. No. 3756 of 2017, Cr. M.P. No. 84 of 2017
44. In the present cases the State had directed the Anti Corruption Bureau to conduct investigation in connection with alleged irregularities in the matter of land acquisition cases in the district of Dhanbad pursuant to which a preliminary enquiry was instituted and the Anti Corruption Bureau repeatedly insisted upon handing over the task of further investigation of the five cases already registered in Dhanbad/Dhansar police stations and ultimately the state government handed over the further investigation of the five cases already registered in Dhanbad/Dhansar police stations to Anti Corruption Bureau vide letter no 401 dated 03.03.2006. In the background of the aforesaid communications, it cannot be said that the initial direction of the State 42 government to the Anti Corruption Bureau was regarding further investigation of the five cases already registered in Dhanbad/Dhansar police station though vide letter no. 401 dated 03.03.2006 issued by the government, further investigation of the five cases registered in the regular police stations were also handed over to the Anti Corruption Bureau, that too upon insistence of the Anti Corruption Bureau itself. This is clear from the sequence of events in connection with the cases as already stated and discussed above with respect to three Dhanbad/Dhansar police station cases and corresponding vigilance P.S cases.
45. Further the Anti Corruption Bureau, upon conducting the preliminary enquiry pursuant to the various correspondences received from the state government, found much wider allegations and conspiracy under various provisions of Indian Penal Code, Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities ) Act, 1989 as well as under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 of the nature of scam in the matter of land acquisition and disbursement of the compensation amount in the district of Dhanbad , leading to huge defalcation of government money, involving a large number of public servants of various government departments, banks and middlemen, consequently depriving the genuine persons, mainly those belonging to schedule tribe and schedule caste categories and accordingly filed three vigilance P.S cases which we are concerned in this batch of cases. The base of allegation involved in the aforesaid three vigilance P.S. cases is much wider as compared to that of corresponding Dhanbad/Dhansar P.S. cases. The three vigilance P.S cases indicate involvement of a large number of victims, a large number of conspiracies involving different sets of persons, wide scale misuse of official position of a large number of public servant and the entire allegation reflects large scale scam involving wider conspiracy to deprive poor tribal of their legitimate right and siphon off government money. The details of the allegation made in Dhanbad/Dhansar P.S. cases and corresponding Vigilance P.S. cases have already been given above which clearly indicates that the allegations in 43 Dhanbad/Dhansar P.S. cases were of much narrower scope as compared to that of the corresponding vigilance P.S cases. No doubt, there are overlapping facts in the case, but the vigilance P.S. cases cannot be quashed only on this count. This Court is of the considered view that conspiracy to cheat each genuine person is a distinct offence involving different sets of persons and abuse of official position in connection with each transaction is also distinct offence. Even one person may be involved in multiple instances of abuse of official positions with regards to each victim and/or with regards to multiple victims. The FIRs registered under Dhanbad/Dhansar P.S. cases do not indicate involvement of any middlemen , which is there in corresponding Vigilance P.S cases and any involvement of middlemen in the matter of land acquisition and disbursement of compensation may constitute a distinct offence with regards to the same victim or multiple victims. Merely because the mode and manner in connection with some of the offences may be same in Dhanbad/Dhansar P.S. case and corresponding Vigilance P.S case and some of the victims are also same , it is not enough to quash the Vigilance P.S. Cases which are still at the stage of investigation and at this stage it cannot be said as to how many persons would be the accused and how may persons would be the victims of the alleged offence in the matter relating to wide scale scam. Considering the criteria laid down in the case of Babubhai (supra) para 21 , this Court is of the considered view that the allegations in Vigilance P.S. Cases cannot be said to be same as that of Dhanbad P.S cases calling for only further investigation in Dhanbad P.S cases and filing of supplementary charge-sheet under section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. The allegations made in Vigilance P.S. Cases cannot be said to be simply a sequel to the allegations made in Dhanbad P.S cases. The allegations in vigilance P.S cases reflect much wider allegation of conspiracy, multiple conspiracies and abuse of official position of multiple public servants forming multiple groups with the other accused persons including middlemen. This court is of the considered view that no illegality has been committed in registering of Vigilance P.S. Cases even if some of the accused, some of the incidents, and some of the allegations 44 are overlapping. As already held above , initially the government had asked the Anti-Corruption Bureau to enquire into the defalcation of amount in relation to lands acquisition cases in the district of Dhanbad but the Anti Corruption Bureau had repeatedly requested the government to hand over the investigation of five cases registered in Dhanbad in connection with land acquisition and the government ultimately handed over the investigation to Anti Corruption Bureau. However even in such cases where the Anti Corruption Bureau has taken up the task of further investigation of the cases as per instructions of the government, there is no bar in instituting fresh cases where there is much wider allegations involving much more number of persons, much more number of accused and much more nature of offences under different Acts including Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
46. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to quash the FIRs lodged by the Anti-Corruption Bureau numbered as Vigilance P.S Case No. 30/2016; 31/2016 and 32/ 2016 as prayed for by the petitioners in aforesaid criminal miscellaneous petitions, which are accordingly dismissed.
Cr.M.P No. 1711 of 201847. Cr.M.P no. 1711/2018 has been filed by Harish Kumar for quashing of the First Information Report and entire criminal prosecution and proceeding in connection with Vigilance P.S. Case No. 31 of 2016 as well as the First Information Report being Vigilance P.S. Case No. 32 of 2016 on the ground that for the same set of allegations Vigilance P.S. Case No. 30 of 2016 has already been registered and/ or it has been prayed that Vigilance P.S. Case No. 31/16 and Vigilance P.S. Case No. 32/16 may be ordered to be amalgamated with Vigilance P.S. Case No. 30 of 2016 .
48. This Court is of the considered view that the nature of allegations as well as the manner of commission of alleged offence in each case Dhanbad/Dhansar P.S. cases as well as in each corresponding Vigilance P.S cases are different .The commission of offence including conspiracy involves different sets of persons and each vigilance P.S case further appears to have smaller conspiracies within wide umbrella of conspiracy 45 in each case. In Vigilance P.S Case No. 30 of 2016, it has been inter alia alleged that the cheques received from the land acquisition office was deposited in the account and were fraudulently withdrawn by various persons. In Vigilance P.S Case No. 31 of 2016, it has been inter alia alleged that the money with regards to land acquisition was paid without following the procedure regarding land acquisition. In Vigilance P.S Case No. 32 of 2016, it has been inter alia alleged that the compensation of land acquisition was paid to persons on the basis of forged and fabricated sale deeds. Further the three cases involved different land acquisition proceedings.
49. In such circumstances it cannot be said that for the same set of allegations or for similar nature of allegations against the petitioner in Cr.M.P no 1711/2018 ,three different cases have been instituted. This Court is of the considered view that each offence as alleged against the petitioner in the three vigilance P.S cases are not only distinct offences, but are also different nature of offence with different modus operandi involving different sets of persons , having no similarity with each other. Merely because a person is accused in all the three cases , that by itself cannot be a ground to quash the subsequent two cases or to pass an order for merger of all the three cases. Accordingly, no relief, as prayed for, including the prayer for amalgamation of the three cases, can be granted to the petitioner in Cr.M.P no 1711/2018, which is hereby dismissed.
50. Interim orders stand vacated.
51. Lower Court Records/Case-diary received from the concerned courts are directed to be sent back to the learned courts below.
52. Office is directed to immediately communicate this order to the concerned courts.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Binit/Pankaj