Judgment :- Common Order: 1. The Criminal Original Petition No.4500 of 2005 has been filed by accused 4 and Criminal Original Petition No. 7522 of 2005 has been filed by Accused 1 and 2 of the very same Criminal Case No. 1827 of 2005 on the file of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai and quash the same. 2. Mr. G.M. Ramasubramanian, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the respondent herein had already filed a similar complaint before the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City against, Babu Manil Koshy and his wife, the petitioners in Crl. O.P. No. 7522 of 2005, for an offence punishable under Section 406 of I.P.C, on the same set of facts. Wherein by its order dated 22. 2003, the learned IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City has ordered as follows: Complainant present. Heard the counsel. Register F.I.R. The complaint is referred under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. to A.C.P. Ulsoor for investigation and to report by 4. 2003. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners also produced a copy of the report filed by the Karnataka State Police, on 3. 2003 under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. relating to F.I.R.No. 92 of 2003. Wherein, it is stated that the respondent herein had filed a complaint which was closed as per the report filed by the Inspector of Police, Law and Order, Indira Nagar Police, Bangalore, at page 6 which reads as follows: The complainant Shri Thomas George is not provided any documents or records or any, evidence etc. or proofs etc. in respect of commencing their company, or about the fund collected by them; or in any other transactions of the said company being stated that the accused are made treachery to them etc. and therefore for this reason, the allegations made by the complainants against these accused are being found as false allegations. Therefore, all the transactions made between the complainants and accused are being oral agreements; and in view of not providing any proper proof, evidence or suitable documents in this regard; and hence, this case is treated as false case; and finally submitted B-report for its approval to the Honble Court and requested the acknowledgement in receipt of the same. Therefore, all the transactions made between the complainants and accused are being oral agreements; and in view of not providing any proper proof, evidence or suitable documents in this regard; and hence, this case is treated as false case; and finally submitted B-report for its approval to the Honble Court and requested the acknowledgement in receipt of the same. The order has been passed in Kannada language, hence, a translated copy in English, certified and signed by a notary public has also been produced along with the order passed in Kannada, by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 4. In the instant case, on 4. 2003, the respondent/de facto complainant had filed a complaint before the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Crime Branch, Egmore, Chennai. Based on which, F.I.R was registered, in A.FIR. No.156 of 2003. Subsequently, final report was filed before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, wherein, it is submitted that during the course of investigation, though notice was sent to the complainant by police, there was no response from the complainant. When personally went and searched in the given address to serve police notice, it was ascertained that one Thiru. Chandramouli was living in that address and complainants whereabouts was not known. It is further stated that after the registration of the case, complainant did not present himself before the investigation officer and due to the complainants non-cooperation with further probe and because of the non-availability of the case related documents, the police could not proceed with further investigation. Hence, after obtaining orders from superiors, this case was referred as Undetected. The Investigation Officer, Central Crime Branch, Egmore, Chennai submitted his report on the above grounds before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai seeking an order to close the proceeding. 5. After the final report, Protest report was filed by the respondent/complainant for which he has filed an affidavit. In the affidavit, the respondent/Complainant has stated that, he was working as Quality Controller in U.S.A. and living there along with his family members and he was a friend of Babu Mannil Koshy @ Babu from his childhood. The said petitioner/Accused 1, and his wife second petitioner/Accused-2 in Crl. In the affidavit, the respondent/Complainant has stated that, he was working as Quality Controller in U.S.A. and living there along with his family members and he was a friend of Babu Mannil Koshy @ Babu from his childhood. The said petitioner/Accused 1, and his wife second petitioner/Accused-2 in Crl. O.P.No. 7522 of 2005 had been very close to the complainant and in the year 1993, the first petitioner/accused-1 visited U.S.A and during his stay at the respondents residence, he had proposed that they could float a company for developing real estate, consisting of himself, his wife along with the respondent/complainant and others as Directors. As per the proposal, the company under the name and style of Alfa Home Makers Pvt. Ltd., was registered under the companies Act 1956 having its registered office at Chennai and he had been transferring money to the company which was managed by the petitioner/A1, in Crl. O.P. No. 7522 of 2005. According to him, a total sum of Rs.30 lakhs had been transferred by the respondent/complainant in cash. Over a period of time, immovable properties worth about Rs.2 crores had been purchased by the company, managed by the petitioner/accused No.1. The other accused had in collusion with the petitioner/A1 also committed offence of criminal breach of trust. 6. The complainant has further averred in the affidavit that the first respondent who is the Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch instead of investigating the case in a proper manner, had hastily chosen to close the case on a flimsy ground, without giving an opportunity to the respondent/complainant. It is seen that the respondent/complainant had also given his sworn statement on 112. 2004, before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. Based on the protest petition and his sworn statement dated 112. 2004, learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai passed a docket order dated 11. 2005 as follows: "Taken on file under Section 420, 406 and 120(h) IPC. Complainant absent. Petition under Section 249 Cr.P.C. filed. Issue summons to A1 to A5 by 21. 2005." 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondent/de facto complainant cannot file a second complaint on the same set of facts that was alleged before the learned IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore. Hence, the criminal proceeding pending before the Court below is not maintainable. Issue summons to A1 to A5 by 21. 2005." 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondent/de facto complainant cannot file a second complaint on the same set of facts that was alleged before the learned IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore. Hence, the criminal proceeding pending before the Court below is not maintainable. In support of his contention, he relied on the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala (2001) SCC (Crl) 1048 wherein, the Apex Court has categorically held that there can be no second F.I.R. and no fresh investigation on receipt of every subsequent information in respect of the same cognizable offence or same occurrence giving rise to one or more cognizable offences, which read as follows: "20. From the above discussion it follows that under the scheme of the provisions of Sections 154, 155, 156, 157, 162, 169, 170 and 173 CrPC only the earliest or the first information in regard to the commission of a cognizable offence satisfies the requirements of Section 154 CrPC. Thus, there can be no second FIR and consequently, there can be no fresh investigation on receipt of every subsequent information in respect of the same cognizable offence or the same occurrence or incident giving rise to one or more cognizable offences. On receipt of information about a cognizable offence or an incident giving rise to a cognizable offence or offences and on entering the FIR in the station house diary, the officer in charge of a police station has to investigate not merely the cognizable offence reported in the FIR but also other connected offences found to have been committed in the course of the same transaction or the same occurrence and file one or more reports as provided in Section 173 Cr.P.C." The Honble Apex Court further held at page 1067 as follows: "The course adopted in this case, namely, the registration of the information as the second FIR in regard to the same incident and making a fresh investigation is not permissible under the scheme of the provisions of Cr.P.C as pointed out above, therefore, the investigation undertaken and the report thereof cannot but be invalid. We have, therefore, no option except to quash the same leaving it open to the investigating agency to seek permission in Crime no.353 or 354 of 1994 of the Magistrate to make further investigation, forward further report or reports and thus proceed in accordance with law." 8. It is clear from the material available in the typed set that the de facto complainant had already filed a complaint, based on which, the case was registered by the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City and the Investigating Officer had filed his final report stating that the case was treated as undetected, as the case filed without any supporting documents. Subsequently, the petitioner herein gave a complaint before the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Crime Branch, Egmore, Chennai on 4. 2003 which is available in the typed set of papers. As contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, it is a second F.I.R, on the same set of facts registered in A.F.I.R. No. 156 of 2003 by the Sub Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Egmore, Chennai. Subsequently, final report was also filed whereby, it was closed, on the reason stated earlier. In the report, the investigating officer has categorically stated that there was no response from the de facto complainant, inspite of notice sent by the police and further, when personally went and searched in the given address to serve police notice, it was ascertained that one Thiru. Chandramouli: was living in that address and the complainants whereabouts not known. Since the registration of the case, complainant was not present for the investigation. Due to his non-co-operation and non-availability of the case related documents, the investigating officer, Central Crime Branch XII, Egmore, Chennai filed his report requesting that the Original FIR be closed. Though, a protest petition was filed by the respondent, no supporting document was filed by the respondent to substantiate the allegation levelled against the petitioners. Even while giving the sworn statement before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai, the respondent/de facto complainant has not filed any supporting document. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the allegations levelled against the petitioner is baseless and legally unsustainable. Even while giving the sworn statement before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai, the respondent/de facto complainant has not filed any supporting document. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the allegations levelled against the petitioner is baseless and legally unsustainable. In support of his contentions, he relied on a Full Bench decision of the Supreme Court in Bhaskar Chattoraj v. State of West Bengal (1991) Supp (2) SCC 574, wherein, it was held by the Honble Apex Court that on a meticulous examination of the record, as well as statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C, as there was no material connecting the appellant with the alleged offence of criminal trespass, the allegations were found vague and an afterthought. Hence, it was held that the High Court refusing to quash the proceeding, under Section 482 of the code of Criminal Procedure is not proper. 10. In the light of the decision rendered by the Honble Apex Court, I am of the view that the petitions filed by the petitioners/accused have to be allowed and the impugned Criminal case No. 1827 of 2005 on the file of the Learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai is liable to be quashed, on the ground that the respondent/de facto complainant had filed a similar complaint on the same set of facts, before the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City which was disposed of against the respondent/complainant and further, there is no prima facie material against the petitioners to maintain the criminal proceeding before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. Hence, the criminal proceeding pending against the petitioners has to be construed only an abuse of process of Court. 11. In the result, the Criminal Original Petitions are allowed and the Criminal case No. 1827 of 2005 pending on the file of the Learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai is hereby quashed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No order as to costs.