9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (1) TMI 647X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... D THAT:- In the facts of the present case, we are satisfied that the complaints, which were filed in respect of malfeasance and misfeasance within the jurisdiction of the Ahmedabad Police, were not in respect of the same cognizable offence or the same occurrence giving rise to one or more cognizable offences, nor were they alleged to have been committed in the course of the same transaction or the same occurrence as the ones alleged in First C.R. No. 67/2001. In our view, the distinctions drawn by the High Court are fully justified. The High Court was right in observing that the FIRs, which were under challenge before it, were regarding independent and distinct offences. Hence, the FIRs could not be prohibited on the ground that some other ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the common judgment of the High Court of Gujarat (dated 7.5.2004) dismissing a series of criminal Page 2292 miscellaneous applications, which were intended to question the correctness of certain ongoing investigations into a large economic crime. 2. The Petitioner was the Managing Director (between 1973 and 1991) and thereafter. Chairman of the Second Respondent-Madhavpura Mercantile Co-Operative Bank Limited (hereinafter the Bank ) having its registered office at Shahibaug, Ahmedabad, Gujarat. The Bank was operating under the provisions of the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 1984 (hereinafter the Societies Act ) and was also subject to other laws, such as the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. On 13.3.2001, the Reserve Bank of India, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Banking Regulation Act, 1949. Subsequently, offences under Section 420, 468, 471 of the IPC read with Sections 18 and 24 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, were also added. The investigation of C.R. No. 67/2001 was transferred from Madhavpura Police Station to State CID (Crime). The Petitioner was arrested and remanded to police custody for some time in connection with the said investigation. 4. On 2.5.2001, the High Court of Gujarat made an order in the Public Interest Litigation (Special Civil Application No. 2617/2001) directing, inter alia, that the Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter the CBI ), with the cooperation of the State CID (Crime), conduct an investigation into the deeds and misdeeds of the respondents, including th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n application for recall of the order of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate directing investigation under Section 156(3) of the CrPC. The learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on 18.12.2002 rejected this application. The learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate took the view that the CBI was conducting investigation under the order of the High Court with respect to specific offences of fraud and misappropriation pertaining to the Mumbai Branch, and since further offences committed pertaining to the Ahmedabad Branch had come to light the Bank was justified in filing different complaints. Further, according to the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, the investigation by the CID (Crime), Ahmedabad was in no way contrary to the order of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... judgment dated 7.5.2004, the High Court of Gujarat dismissed all the applications. Being aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner has moved this Court. 10. We have been taken through the record. We have also heard the learned Counsel on both sides. The main plank of the Petitioner's argument is that C.R. No. 67/2001 was the FIR in respect of the offences alleged and, therefore, it was not legally permissible for any other complaints to be filed in respect of the offences alleged to have been committed in the course of the said transaction. 11. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner placed heavy reliance on the observations of this Court in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala (hereinafter T.T. Antony ). In the written submissions tiled on behalf of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... more reports as provided in Section 173 CrPC. (emphasis supplied) 13. In the facts of the present case, we are satisfied that the complaints, which were filed in respect of malfeasance and misfeasance within the jurisdiction of the Ahmedabad Police, were not in respect of the same cognizable offence or the same occurrence giving rise to one or more cognizable offences, nor were they alleged to have been committed in the course of the same transaction or the same occurrence as the ones alleged in First C.R. No. 67/2001. Page 2295 14. There is a further distinction in that while First C.R. No. 67/2001 pertained to cases concerning one Ketan Parikh and entities associated with him in the crime, the subsequent complaints pertained to other par ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
