9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (3) TMI 1422 - HC - Indian LawsBribery - Validity of continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner - legal evidence to prove the charges levelled against the petitioner or not - submission of petitioner is that the registration of second FIR in respect of very same transaction is in violation of Article 14, 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India - HELD THAT - It is impermissible and consequently there can be no fresh investigation on receipt of subsequent information in respect of the same cognizable offence or same occurrence or incident giving rise to one or more cognizable offences. If we look at the FIR in Cr. Nos. 42/2010, 43/2010, 46/2010 and 57/2010, the offences alleged are one and the same. It discloses that accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 hatched conspiracy to acquire 325 acres of land in Bandi kodigehalli village for the establishment of Special Economic Zone by M/s. ITASCA Software Development Pvt. Limited, of which, the petitioner is the Managing Director and in furtherance of the said conspiracy, all the accused acquired the lands through consent award without payment of the compensation to the land owners by forging the signatures and by giving bribe to accused Nos. 1 and 2. That is the only conspiracy set up by the prosecution even in Cr. Nos. 42, 43 and 46/2010. The offences alleged in FIR pertaining to Cr. No. 57/2010 are the same offences and conspiracy or part of the same conspiracy. Offences covered by FIR in Crime No. 57/2010 is part of the same conspiracy, which culminated into the same series of acts forming the same transactions in which the offences alleged in the previous FIR were committed, wherein, the petitioner was summoned by issuance of notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C. on number of occasions and the documents were seized and necessary information was secured. The transactions in Cr. No. 57/2010 is same or part of the same transaction in Cr. Nos. 42/2010, 43/2010 and 46/2010 i.e., part of the same conspiracy to grab the lands of private persons without payment of compensation by forging consent letters of the land owners. There is no second conspiracy other than the above conspiracy. Regarding the merits, as admitted, no Government money was involved for acquisition of land. The application of M/s. ITASCA Software Development Pvt. Limited was placed before the State High Level Clearance Committee by Karnataka Udyog Mitra headed by Chief Minister in the meeting of the committee and the application was approved. M/s. ITASCA Software Development Pvt. Limited was permitted to start Special Economic Zone in an area of 325 acres of land in Bandi kodigehalli village. The amount to be paid to the land owners was deposited by United Telecom Limited. - The case of the Lokayukta is that the amount deposited with M/s. Indu Builders and Developers to make ex gratia payment has been misused by accused Nos. 1 and 2, since M/s. Indu Builders and Developers is a benami company of accused Nos. 1 and 2. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 said to have received bribe to approve the application submitted by M/s. ITASCA Software Development Pvt. Limited. Nobody questioned the integrity of the petitioner for all these days. The consent award was passed through KIADB a Government agency. Not a single complaint cropped up with regard to acquisition of land and payment of compensation. For all these reasons, the continuation of proceedings against the petitioner is nothing but abuse of power and abuse of process of Court. As such, proceedings as against the petitioner are liable to be quashed. Petition allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Permissibility of Second FIR or Multiple FIRs 2. Legal Evidence Against the Petitioner 3. Abuse of Process of Court Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Permissibility of Second FIR or Multiple FIRs: The petitioner argued that the registration of a second FIR (Crime No. 57/2010) for the same transaction is impermissible and violates Articles 14, 20, and 21 of the Constitution of India. The court observed that the offences alleged in FIRs pertaining to Crime Nos. 42/2010, 43/2010, 46/2010, and 57/2010 are part of the same conspiracy and transaction. The Supreme Court's rulings in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala and Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. CBI were cited, establishing that there can be no second FIR for the same incident. The court concluded that the registration of Crime No. 57/2010 was unwarranted and impermissible, as it was based on the same set of facts and conspiracy as the previous FIRs. The court emphasized that subjecting a citizen to fresh investigations for the same incident constitutes an abuse of power. 2. Legal Evidence Against the Petitioner: The petitioner contended that there was no legal evidence to substantiate the charges against him. The court noted that the investigation in Crime No. 57/2010 was merely a transfer of documents and statements from previous investigations (Crime Nos. 42/2010, 43/2010, and 46/2010). The court found that no new evidence was brought on record during the investigation of Crime No. 57/2010. The court also highlighted that the petitioner had cooperated with the investigation by providing documents and information when summoned. The court concluded that the continuation of proceedings against the petitioner, based on the same set of documents and statements from previous investigations, lacked merit and was an abuse of the process of the court. 3. Abuse of Process of Court: The petitioner argued that the continuation of proceedings against him amounted to an abuse of the court's process. The court observed that the charges against the petitioner were based on the same conspiracy and transaction as the previous FIRs. The court emphasized that the petitioner had not gained any undue advantage, and the acquisition of land and payment of compensation were carried out through a government agency (KIADB). The court found that there was no evidence of misuse of funds or any complaint regarding the acquisition process. The court concluded that the continuation of proceedings against the petitioner was an abuse of power and the court's process. Conclusion: The court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR registered in Crime No. 57/2010 and the charge-sheet filed in Spl. C.C. No. 135/2011, insofar as it related to the petitioner. The court held that the registration of a second FIR for the same transaction was impermissible and that there was no legal evidence to support the charges against the petitioner. The court also found that the continuation of proceedings against the petitioner constituted an abuse of the court's process.
|
