Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1319 (RAJ)

Rohit Tekriwal v. State of Rajasthan

2010-07-28

GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS

body2010
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. In this criminal miscellaneous petition, the petitioner has prayed for direction that 9 FIRs registered at Police Station Kotwali, Bhilwara, bearing No.355/10, 356/10, 357/10, 386/10, 387/10, 388/10, 389/10, 395/10 and No.405/10 may be clubbed with FIR No.313/10 and treated as FIR No.313/10. It is also prayed that the investigating officer should be restrained to register FIR if any complaint comes on the same facts and that complaint should also be clubbed with FIR No.313/10 and investigation should be sent to CID (SOG) OR CID (CB) for thorough investigation. 3. In the prayer clause, it is also prayed that FIR may be quashed qua the petitioner and investigating officer should be restrained to implicate the petitioner as an accused in any of the FIR which comes later on on the same facts of FIR No.313/10. 4. For the above prayers, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that initially FIR No.313/10 was filed by the complainant Manish Garg that a company namely, ORO Trade Network India Ltd., in which, there are seven directors and one Rajesh Malpani, who was Personal Assistant to one of the Directors satyendra Sharma, came to Bhilwara in November 2009 and met the complainant and told him that the company is dealing in investment in the gold and they have number of investment plans and if the complainant invests in the company the complainant will get regular returns from the investment, that too, periodically. It was also assured that the investors will get the profit through cheque and if more buyers are there, the complainant will get some more profit. Upon this assurance, he invested the money but the company after getting the investment from the complainant and other people neither gave gold nor interest to those persons and, nearly two months back, the whereabouts of the directors is not traceable. 5. Upon aforesaid complaint of complainant Manish Garg, FIR No.313 of 2010 was registered by the police, in which, investigation is going on. 5. Upon aforesaid complaint of complainant Manish Garg, FIR No.313 of 2010 was registered by the police, in which, investigation is going on. Case of the petitioner is that not only complainant Manish Garg but so many persons have filed FIR in the Police Station Kotwali, Bhilwara, upon which, different FIRs have been registered but the facts of all the cases are same and police is investigating the matter separately; and, according to the petitioner, petition is also one of the accused alleged in the FIR, therefore, in the interest of justice, while exercising power under section 482, Cr.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, Bhilwara may be directed to consolidate all the FIRs and club all FIRs with FIR No.313/10 and, in future also, if similar type of complaint is received in the police station, the same be treated as one FIR and investigation of the case may be sent either to CID (SOG) OR CID (CB) for thorough investigation. 6. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention towards judgment dated 11.06.2010 passed at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1068/2010, Rahul Sharma @ Satyendra v. State of Rajasthan. While citing the above order, it is submitted that the learned Single Judge has passed order that all the FIRs, being subject-matter in the said petition, may be investigated by a single Investigating agency because of the fact that large scale economic fraud is alleged to have been committed by the petitioner and the learned Single Judge passed order that investigation should be handed over to CID (SOG) for thorough investigation. 7. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the above cited order. 8. In my opinion, there is no such provision in the Criminal Procedure Code for clubbing together the FIRs filed by different complainants in different matters. In this case, prayer of the petitioner is unfounded that number of FIRs filed by different complainants for the same allegation shall be clubbed with only one FIR No.313/2010 filed initially. Investigation of particular complaint is required to be made separately and it is for the investigating agency how and from which investigating agency the investigation is required to be made. Investigation of particular complaint is required to be made separately and it is for the investigating agency how and from which investigating agency the investigation is required to be made. While exercising power under Section 482, Cr.P.C., I am not inclined to pass any order for clubbing of the FIRs and treating all FIRs as one FIR because every complainant is having a different grievance, so also, the amount and date of complaint are also different. In my view, therefore, it is for the prosecution or the investigating agency to take decision for the purpose of investigation. 9. As per the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, the accused cannot claim as a matter of right that investigation should be conducted by a particular agency. It is power and domain of the State to conduct fair investigation and, for the same, decision is required to be taken by the State and no direction can be given in this regard until any specific allegation of malafide is levelled by the party concerned. 10. In the judgment dated 11.06.2010, rendered by learned Single Judge at the Jaipur Bench, no such direction for clubbing of the FIRs together is given. The only direction is with regard to conducting investigation by CID (SOG) because large scale economic fraud was alleged to be committed. In my opinion, no specific direction in this case can be given for treating all FIRs as one FIR No.313/2010 because how investigation is to be conducted is the domain of the State Government.In this view of the matter, there is no force in this petition and the same is hereby dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******