Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 504 (UTT)

Radha Krishna Paliwal v. State of Uttarakhand

2016-08-22

U.C.DHYANI

body2016
JUDGMENT : U.C. Dhyani, J. By means of present criminal writ petition, the petitioner seeks following reliefs, among others: (i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to club FIR dated 31.03.2016, registered at P.S. Uttarkashi, District Uttarkashi as FIR no. 12/2016, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC, P.S. Uttarkashi with FIR no. 09 of 2016 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC, P.S. Bhimtal, District Nainital. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to do joint investigation in the FIR dated 31.03.2016, registered at P.S. Uttarkashi, District Uttarkashi as FIR no. 12/2016, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC, P.S. Uttarkashi with FIR no. 09 of 2016 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC, P.S. Bhimtal, District Nainital. 2. Two FIRs were lodged in respect of the same offences, i.e., offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC, one at Vigilance Establishment, Dehradun and the other at Vigilance Establishment, Nainital, Sector Haldwani. The subject matter of the FIRs is the same, i.e., the scholarship granted to the scheduled caste students of this State, who were given admission in Mewar University, Rajasthan. The allegation against the petitioner is that an attempt has been made by the office bearers of the Mewar University to misappropriate the scholarship fund of scheduled caste students of this State, who have been given admission in Mewar University. Investigating agency is the same. Complainant and accused are also the same. The offences are also the same. The Institution against whose office bearers the allegations have been levelled is the same. Both the FIRs were also lodged on the same day. 3. Nobody can be vexed twice for the same cause, is the constitutional mandate. Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India provides that no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once. 4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner made a reference of Section 186 of Code of Criminal Procedure in support of his contention. The same is not applicable at this stage, inasmuch as the cognizance of the offences is not being questioned before this Court. Instead, it is the question of joint investigation of two FIRs, as has been prayed in the writ petition. 5. The same is not applicable at this stage, inasmuch as the cognizance of the offences is not being questioned before this Court. Instead, it is the question of joint investigation of two FIRs, as has been prayed in the writ petition. 5. Reliance has also been placed by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners on the judgments rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of T.T. Antony vs State of Kerala and other connected criminal appeals, (2001) 6 SCC 181 and Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah vs Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2013) 6 SCC 348 , in support of his contention. 6. Since the seat of Government is at Dehradun where the first FIR was lodged in respect of alleged offences, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that both the FIRs, i.e., one lodged at Dehradun with Vigilance Establishment, Dehradun and other lodged with Vigilance Establishment, Nainital, Sector Haldwani may be jointly investigated by the Vigilance Establishment at Dehradun. 7. Criminal writ petition is, therefore, disposed of by directing that the investigation of FIR dated 31.03.2016, registered at P.S. Uttarkashi, District Uttarkashi as FIR no. 12/2016, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC, P.S. Uttarkashi as well as FIR no. 09 of 2016 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC, P.S. Bhimtal, District Nainital shall be jointly conducted by the Investigating Officer of Vigilance Establishment at Dehradun.