Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Prayer in this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to treat FIR No.208 dated 02.10.2021, registered at Police Station Mataur, District S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali, under Sections 409, 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC to be the First Information Report/case with further direction to treat any other case registered subsequently for the same incident of cheating including case FIR No.151 dated 06.10.2021, registered at Police Station Central, Sector 17, Chandigarh, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC as statement under Section 162 Cr.P.C. Alternative prayer made by the petitioner is to quash FIR No.151 of 06.10.2021 as above on account of the same disclosing no offence whatsoever insofar as the complaint made by respondent No.4 is concerned and that the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. (Annexure P-5) of the said case having been prepared on the basis of complaint made by 1 of 8 CRM-M-34022-2022 respondent No.3, for which FIR No.208 of 02.10.2021 as above, was registered. Another prayer made by the petitioner is that all the proceedings emanating from FIR No.151 of 06.10.2021 as above be directed to be merged and tried with proceedings arising out of FIR No.208 of 02.10.2021, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali.

5. Contention of the petitioner is that he was induced by respondent No.4 and his cohorts to purchase some other land and to arrange the funds by selling House No.20, Sector 5, Chandigarh. It is contended that both FIRs are in respect of the same allegations. Though, FIR No.151 has been lodged on the complaint of respondent No.4 but it is by taking into account the statement of respondent No.3 that Page no.3 out of 8 pages 3 of 8 CRM-M-34022-2022 investigation has been carried out and so the statement of respondent No.4 in FIR No.151 should be treated as the statement under Section 162 Cr.P.C. in FIR No.208 Prayer is made to quash FIR No.151 and alternatively, to club both the cases to be tried by the same Court.

Anticipatory bail denied twice by Ld. Lower Court and Hon'ble High Court to Amita Brar. She has still not been arrested. On the basis of the various difference in the two FIRs, prayer is made for dismissing the petition by submitting that there is no similarity of allegations.

8. Having considered submissions of counsel for all the sides, I find no merit in this petition.

9. Section 162 Cr.P.C. reads as under:-

"162. Statements to police not to be signed: Use of statements in evidence.--(1) No statement made by any person to a police officer in the course of an investigation under this Chapter, shall, if reduced to writing, be signed by the person making it; nor shall any such statement or any record thereof, whether in a police diary or otherwise, or any part of such statement or record, be used for any purpose, save as hereinafter provided, at any inquiry or trial in respect of any offence under investigation at the time when such statement was made: Provided that when any witness is called for the prosecution in such inquiry or trial whose statement has been reduced into writing as aforesaid, any part of his statement, if duly proved, may be used by the accused, and with the permission of the Court, by the prosecution, to contradict such witness in the manner provided by section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872); and when any part of such statement is so used, any part thereof may also be used in the re- examination of such witness, but for the purpose only of explaining any matter referred to in his cross-examination."

10 Analysis of aforesaid provision would reveal that by no stretch of imagination, the allegation contained in FIR No.151 can be treated as statement under Section 162 Cr.P.C. in FIR No.208, because the scope and object of Section 162 Cr.P.C. is to make any statement Page no.5 out of 8 pages 5 of 8 CRM-M-34022-2022 before the police in the course of an investigation inadmissible except for the purpose of contradicting the witness.