2018 (6) TMI 1803 - HC - Indian Laws

Parallel proceedings - lodging of two subsequent FIRs in connection with the same and connected offences - seizure of new currency and Gold - whether allegations mentioned in the FIRs are one and the same or not - HELD THAT - Admittedly in the case on hand the accused involved are one and the same. The first FIR No.RC MA1 2016 A0040 dated 19.12.2016 was lodged in Chennai for the offence under Sections 409 420 and 120-B IPC r/w 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988 and subsequent two FIRs in RC MA1 2016 A0051 and RC MA1 2016 A0052 dated 30.12.2016 was lodged in Chennai for the offence under Sections 409 420 and 120-B IPC r/w 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988. In FIR No.RC MA1 2016 A0040 the suspected offence has been shown as criminal conspiracy cheating and criminal breach of trust. The date of suspected offence is 08.12.2016 and entry taken on 19.12.2016. The place of occurrence is alleged to be Chennai and Vellore - A reading of the above said three FIRs shows that the search and seizure was conducted by Income Tax Department in the premises of A-1 Sekar Reddy at Chennai on 8/9/12.2016 and on consecutive days the amount was recovered. Further it is also clear that the cases have been registered on purported information received from Income Tax Department regarding search and seizure of currency in new denomination concerning the same accused. Further the averments in two subsequent FIRs makes it clear that the allegations in them is connected to the offence alleged in the first FIR in RC MA1 2016 A0040. A careful perusal of the stand taken by CBI would have no manner of doubt that the reliance has solely been placed on the searches/seizures carried out by the Income Tax Department on 8/9.12.2016. Therefore to contend that the allegations mentioned in FIR are different and constitute distinct and separate transaction is absolutely untenable. Pertinently no independent or separate materials have been gathered by the respondent apart from the proceedings carried out by the Income Tax Department. Further the averments made by the respondent that the petitioners have hatched a conspiracy with unknown public servants also cannot be countenanced in the absence of any public servant or Bank being identified so far. Thus it is clear that in the present case on hand the source of information is one and the same. The accused are also same persons. It is also apparent that the offence alleged in the first FIR and offences covered in the subsequent FIRs are connected and arising out of the same transaction and as such registering of subsequent FIRs is not proper. Thus the claim of the petitioners that lodging of two subsequent FIRs in connection with the same and connected offences as mentioned in first FIR in Crime No.RC MA1 2016 A0040 is not permissible as Section 154 of Cr.P.C. do not permit the registration of subsequent FIRs for the same offence or connected offence. In the light of the above said discussion the plea of the petitioner is to be entertained. Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of FIRs RC MA1 2016 A0051 and RC MA1 2016 A0052.
2. Legality of multiple FIRs for the same transaction.
3. Allegations and evidence against the accused.
4. Procedural propriety and abuse of process of law.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Quashing of FIRs RC MA1 2016 A0051 and RC MA1 2016 A0052:
The petitioners sought to quash FIRs RC MA1 2016 A0051 and RC MA1 2016 A0052, arguing that these FIRs were registered based on the same facts and circumstances as the earlier FIR RC MA1 2016 A0040. The petitioners contended that the subsequent FIRs were an attempt by the respondent agency to circumvent a court order rejecting their request for police custody in the initial FIR.

2. Legality of Multiple FIRs for the Same Transaction:
The court examined whether the subsequent FIRs pertained to the same incident or different incidents. It was noted that the seizures forming the basis of FIRs RC MA1 2016 A0051 and RC MA1 2016 A0052 were carried out before the seizure in FIR RC MA1 2016 A0040. The court referred to the rulings in T.T. Antony vs. State of Kerala and Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah vs. CBI, which established that there can be no second FIR for the same cognizable offence. The court concluded that the subsequent FIRs were registered for the same transaction and hence were not permissible.

3. Allegations and Evidence Against the Accused:
The petitioners argued that there was no incriminating material to substantiate the allegations of cheating, criminal breach of trust, or conspiracy. The court noted that the respondent agency had not identified any public servant or bank involved in the alleged transactions. The court found that the allegations in the subsequent FIRs were connected to the same set of facts as the first FIR, and there was no new or independent material to justify the registration of separate FIRs.

4. Procedural Propriety and Abuse of Process of Law:
The court observed that the registration of subsequent FIRs after the rejection of the respondent's request for police custody in the initial FIR indicated an abuse of process. The court emphasized that under the scheme of the Cr.P.C., only the first information regarding the commission of a cognizable offence is required, and any further information should be treated as supplementary to the first FIR.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the petitions and quashed FIRs RC MA1 2016 A0051 and RC MA1 2016 A0052 against the petitioners. The court granted the respondent agency the liberty to treat the allegations in the quashed FIRs as supplementary to the first FIR RC MA1 2016 A0040. Consequently, all connected CMPs were closed.