Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 439 (RAJ)

A. C. Satsangi v. State of Rajasthan

2006-02-08

VINEET KOTHARI

body2006
Judgment Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.-This criminal misc. petition filed under Section 482 CrPC is directed against the order dated 25.08.1992 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (CBI Cases), Jaipur in Criminal Case No. 29/1989 whereby the learned Court below rejected the objections filed by the accused petitioner before the said Court that the investigation on the basis of second First Information Report for the alleged offence by CBI was not legally sustainable as a FIR No. 455/1987 had already been filed by the Bank of Baroda, Tripolia Bazar, Jaipur for offence under Section 420 IPC for the same offence in which ultimately a failure report was accepted by the Court on 12.06.1991. 2. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Mahendra Singh the second complaint was filed by the same bank for the same alleged offence before the CBI on 09.02.1988 which was registered as FIR No. 5A/1988 and the CBI started investigation in the matter and filed challan against the accused petitioner though, against Bank Officer concerned, no challan was filed. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has further brought to my notice that since filing of this petition in which the proceedings before the Court below in Criminal Case No. 29/1989 were also stayed by this Court vide its order dated 31.03.1993, the Bank and the said party M/s R.S. Enterprises, K-16, C-Scheme, Jaipur have settled their loan accounts in question and he has placed on record the copy of the letter dated 04.05.2002 written by Bank of Baroda to the effect that there are no dues against the said firm M/s. R.S. Enterprising, K-16, C-Scheme, Jaipur, of which the accused petitioner was the proprietor. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the Judgment s of Honble Supreme Court in the case of T.T. Antony vs. State of Kerala and Ors., 2001 (5) JT 44 (SC) and in the case of State of West Bengal and Ors. vs. Sampat Lal and Ors., AIR 1985 SC 195 and submitted that the second FIR on the same set of facts could not have been filed by the Bank of Baroda before the CBI and therefore, the said second FIR as well as the investigation conducted in pursuance of the same was without authority of law and amounted to abuse of process of law. 4. 4. Learned Counsel for the CBI however, opposes the aforesaid contentions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The learned Court below in the impugned order dated 25.08.1992 has merely proceeded on that basis that since the State Government vide its letter dated 011.1955 and 19.06.1961 had given consent to the CBI for investigating the offence committed in Rajasthan under IPC therefore, the said investigation conducted by the CBI in the present case, could not be held to be void. The learned Court below has not gone into this aspect of the matter as to whether in the face of the first FIR having already been lodged by the said Bank in Police Station, Kotwali, Jaipur bearing No. 455/1987 whether the second FIR for the said alleged offence, namely No. 5A/1988 could be filed before the CBI or not. 5. Be that as it may, in view of submissions and developments which took place during the pendency of this criminal misc. petition before this Court that the Bank have now already settled the dues of the petitioner, the question of investigating into alleged offence relating to some loan document or availing of credit facility by the said firm are of not much relevance now. Even otherwise, in view of the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of T.T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala and Ors. (Supra), the second FIR before the CBI for the same offence at that point of time when the first FIR already lodged at Police Station, Kotwali, Jaipur and that the investigating agency was seized of the investigation, appears to be without any authority of law. 6. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 25.08.1992 is liable to be quashed and set-aside and the second FIR bearing No. 5A/88 lodged by the Bank of Baroda is also liable to be quashed. 7. Accordingly, this criminal misc. petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 25.08.1992 is quashed and the second FIR No. 5A/1988 lodged by the Bank of Baroda before the CBI is also quashed and the proceedings pending in Criminal Case No. 29/1989 pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (CBI Cases), Jaipur are quashed.