9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 672X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Anr. [ 2013 (4) TMI 903 - SUPREME COURT] , it was held that there can be no second FIR and consequently no fresh investigation on receipt of every subsequent information in respect of the same cognizable offence or the same occurrence of the instance giving rise to one or more cognizable offences. The second FIR in respect of an offence or different offences committed in the course of same transaction is impermissible and it violates Article 21 of the Constitution. Section 218 deals with separate charges for distinct offences. Section 219 provides that three offences of the same kind can be clubbed in one trial committed within one year. Section 202 speaks of trial for more than one offence if it is the same transaction. In the said case it cannot be said that the defalcation is same transaction as the transaction are in different treasuries for different years, different amounts, different allotment letters, supply orders and suppliers. There are different sets of accused in different cases with respect to defalcation. There may be a conspiracy in general one and a separate one. There may be larger conspiracy and smaller conspiracy which may develop in successive stages involvin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the year 2014 to 2016. It was not necessary to register the second FIR in respect to same transactions. The registration of second FIR is mala fide. ii) In the FIR dated 13.05.2017, the transactions entered and executed by the Firms viz. M/s. Lemon Trading and M/s. Kundan Trading were already under investigation which is evident from the report filed under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the accused in the FIR dated 13.05.2017. iii) The Respondent No. 1 has filed two separate FIRs for the same offence which is not acceptable by law. iv) Two separate FIRs cannot be registered against the accused for the same cognizable offence or same occurrence giving rise to one or more cognizable offences committed or any further information disclosed by the investigating authority in future during the same offence committed at the relevant time and the same is not valid. v) If multiple FIRs' are registered against the same accused in respect to the same transactions, it will result in accused getting entangled in multiple criminal proceedings for the same offence. The registration of such multiple FIRs' is abuse of process of law. vi) The Respondent No. 1 could not hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... equired to be quashed and set aside. 5. Mr. Chavan has relied upon the following decisions: i) T.T. Antoy Vs. State of Kerala and Ors (2001) 6 SCC 181. ii) Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr (2013) 6 SCC 348. iii) Amish Devgan Vs. Union of India Ors (2021) 1 SCC 1. iv) Mohammed Zubair Vs. State of NCT of Delhi and Ors 2022 SCC Online SC 893. v) Satinder Singh Bhasin Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr., in Criminal Writ Petition No. 197 of 2021 vide order dated 12.05.2022. vi) Radhe Shyam Vs. State of Haryana and Ors 2022 SCC Online SC 1935. vii) Ram Lal Narang Vs. State (Delhi Administration) (1979) 2 SCC 322. viii) Nirmal Singh Kahlon Vs. State of Punjab and Ors (2009) 1 SCC 441. ix) Arnab Ranjan Goswami Vs. Union of India and Ors (2020) 14 SCC 12. x) Mahmood Ali and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. in Criminal Appeal 2341 of 2023 arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal No. 12459 of 2022) 6. Mr.D.P. Singh, Special P.P. for CBI submitted that there is no illegality in registration of second FIR. The investigation in FIR dated 13.05.2017 is still pending. The state has not come to determine that both the cases relates to the same transaction or should be cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ficials and got arranged opening bank accounts for the accused entities in the said banks. Shri Ramesh Nagrajan worked as a Chief Manager in Central Bank of India from 02.06.2014 to 28.04.2016. In connivance with other accused he opened 7 accounts for the accused entities through poor persons brought by Mohd. Gous, Mohd. Husain Hanif Shaikh @ Raja was rendering his active participation in the illegal Forex remittance. The petitioner was earlier doing imports of Chinese goods. iv) Petitioner had maintained offices at Surat and other places and appointed persons to prepare forged BEs and other documents with the assistance of the other ladies staff. The wife of the petitioner used to manage the working of the staff, in addition to maintaining the accounts of cash collected, layered and the amount sent to Hongkong and the income of the petitioner. v) After small-scale imports, the petitioner had obtained the ECC Bill of Entry of the said entities with low value from the CHAs for preparing forged BE. When more BEs are required, Brijesh Lohiya used to furnish the Bill of Entry number of the imports made by the other entities. He used to provide computer generated format of BE s stamps o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Punjab National Bank, Axis Bank, State Bank of Hyderabad, Corporation Bank and Canara Bank and on that basis, forex remittances were sent to various entities, holding account with HSBC Bank Hongkong. Investigation revealed that the petitioner had prepared and submitted 28 forged Bills of Entries and proforma Invoices in the name of M/s Lubeez Enterprises with commercial invoice, Bill of Lading etc. against the Bill of Entry, including 10 advance payments, 26 foreign remittances in USD 7,727,092 to the tune of Rs. 49,20,57,063/- during 2015-16 from the account of Lubeez Enterprises to various entities. Lubeez Enterprises had actually imported goods from Hongkong by filing 21 Bill of Entry in JNCH for the total Value of USD 383716.67 equivalent to INR Rs. 3,98,97,947/- and paid duty of Rs. 1,02,35,267/-. The petitioner prepared and submitted 26 proforma invoices in the name of M/s Pawan Enterprises with commercial invoice, B.L. etc., against Bill of Entry, including 10 advance payments, 26 foreign remittances in USD 72,70,110 to the tune of Rs. 4699 crores during 2015-16 were sent from account of Pawan Enterprises to various entities holding amount with HSBC, Hongkong. The petitione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... value etc, purportedly issued by JNCH Nava Sheva etc. and submitted the same to the Bank of Maharashtra, Nariman Point Branch, Mumbai. It came to light that the actual value of the goods imported by the two firms from JNCH Nava Sheva is very low. The officers of Bank of Maharashtra without verifying the genuineness and the import value of goods in the Bills of Entry, transferred forex remittance in USD to the tune of Rs. 72.34 Crores in 56 instances from the account of M/s. Lemon Trading Co. to various entities at Hongkong. Further, the officers of aforesaid bank without verification of the Bill of Entry transferred forex remittance to the tune of Rs. 32.9. Crores in 37 instances from the account of M/s. Kundan Trading to various entities at Hongkong. Hence, a total of Rs. 105.27 Crores were sent as Forex Remittance by 02 firms against forged Bills of Entry from the account of the two firms. 10. The case relating to FIR dated 27.12.2022 is under active investigation and has to proceed further by gathering evidence both oral and documentary to disclose the illegal acts of the accused. This case relates to illegal forex remittance by supporting forged import documents such as Bill of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gents, brokers and other entities, who layered the cash into RTGS credits into the account of two entities Viz. M/s. Lemon Trading and M/s. Kundan Trading Company for being sent to Hongkong in the FIR of 2022 are different from those entities connected in FIR of 2017. 15. The persons/entities, who provided cash for being layered and sent to Hongkong in RC 11(E)/2022 may be different from those entities connected in RC 04(E)/2017. The agents/brokers and other entities, who layered the cash into RTGS credits into the account of the two entities viz. M/s. Lemon Trading and M/s. Kundan Trading Company for being sent to Hongkong in RC 11(E)/ 2022 are different from those entities connected in RC 04(E)/2017. The persons, who prepared forged Bill of Entries and other connected documents, mobilized the equipment of forgery for preparing forged documents in RC 11(E)/2022 are different from those entities connected in RC 04(E)/2017. 16. The forged Bill of Entries utilized by the accused in RC 11(E)/2022 are distinct and separate from those used in RC 04(E)/ 2017. The accused had forged different sets of Bills of Entry and submitted them to the banks in RC 04(E)/2017 and separate set of Bills ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mation should be treated as statements under Section 162 of Cr.P.C. 20. In the case of Radhe Shyam Vs. State of Haryana and Ors. (supra) the Court had considered the issue that the FIRs were registered in different states and they stands clubbed with the first FIR. 21. In the case of Arnab Ranjan Goswami Vs. Union of India and Ors. (supra) the facts of the case indicate that the multiple FIRs were lodged against the accused in different states arising out of same cause of action i.e. news views discussed by him in a TV show. It was observed that no subsequent FIR in respect of same or connected cognizable offence occurrence or instance as alleged in the FIR is permissible. 22. In the case of State of State of Jharkhand Vs. Lalu Prasad Yadav @ Lalu Prasad (supra) the factual matrix indicate that multiple offences each punishable separately for different periods arising during the course of and as part of continuing conspiracy were registered. It was held that the constitution bars double punishment for same offence. However conviction for one offence does not bar subsequent trial and conviction for another offence and it does not matter even if some ingredients of the two offences a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cised sparingly with circumspection, in the rarest of rare cases . While examining FIR, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot embark upon an inquiry about reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR. The Criminal proceedings ought not be scuttled at the initial stage. Extraordinary and inherent power of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice. 25. In the case of Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Aryan Singh etc. (supra) it was held that the scope of the High Court cannot conduct a mini trial at the stage of quashing of the criminal proceedings. 26. The investigation of the FIR of 2022 is in progress. It cannot be said that the FIR pertains to the same transaction or same cause of action which is investigated under the FIR of 2017. Both are distinct in nature. For the reasons stated herein above we are not inclined to quash the FIR and/or club them together. The Petitioner was not available for investigation in the FIR investigated by CBI in respect to FIR of 2017 or FIR of 2022. The Petition is devoid of merits and deserves to be dismissed. ORDER Writ Petition Nos. 2937 of 2023 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
