2010 (8) TMI 892 - SC - Indian Laws

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? Whether two FIRs can be permitted to exist? Whether the two conspiracies were identical or not?

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of FIR No. I-155/2008.
2. Clubbing of FIR No. I-155/2008 with FIR No. I-154/2008.
3. Allegations of biased and unfair investigation.
4. Transfer of investigation to an independent agency.
5. Validity of charge sheets filed based on tainted investigation.

Detailed Analysis:

Quashing of FIR No. I-155/2008:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to quash FIR No. I-155/2008. The court found that both FIRs (C.R. No.I-154/2008 and C.R. No.I-155/2008) pertained to the same incident occurring at the same place and time, thus constituting parts of the same transaction. The court applied the "test of sameness" and concluded that the incidents described in both FIRs were not distinct and independent of each other. Therefore, the second FIR was quashed.

Clubbing of FIR No. I-155/2008 with FIR No. I-154/2008:
The High Court's decision to club the investigation of FIR No. I-155/2008 with FIR No. I-154/2008 was based on the finding that both FIRs arose from the same transaction. The Supreme Court agreed with this conclusion, noting that the incidents described in both FIRs occurred in close proximity of time and place, and involved the same parties and sequence of events.

Allegations of Biased and Unfair Investigation:
The High Court found that the investigation was biased and one-sided, favoring one community over the other. The court noted several irregularities, such as the exclusion of statements from witnesses belonging to one community, the arbitrary inclusion of accused persons without evidence, and the deletion of serious charges like Section 302 IPC. The Supreme Court agreed with these findings, emphasizing that the investigation was not fair and impartial.

Transfer of Investigation to an Independent Agency:
The High Court transferred the investigation to the State CID Crime Branch, citing the biased and unfair nature of the original investigation. The Supreme Court supported this decision but modified the High Court's order, stating that the charge sheets filed based on the tainted investigation should be quashed. The court also clarified that those arrested under FIR No. I-155/2008 would not automatically stand arrested under FIR No. I-154/2008 unless fresh incriminating material was discovered during the new investigation.

Validity of Charge Sheets Filed Based on Tainted Investigation:
The Supreme Court held that the charge sheets filed based on the biased and unfair investigation were invalid. The court emphasized that a fair investigation is a constitutional right under Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The court directed that the charge sheets and any consequential orders be quashed, and allowed for a fresh investigation by the independent agency chosen by the High Court.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court disposed of the appeals with modifications to the High Court's order, emphasizing the need for a fair and impartial investigation. The court quashed the charge sheets filed based on the tainted investigation and allowed for a fresh investigation by the State CID Crime Branch. The court also provided relief for those arrested under the quashed FIR, allowing them to seek bail or other interim relief from the appropriate forum.