Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 922 (RAJ)

Sanjay Harsh v. State of Rajasthan

2016-07-04

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Mr. Sandeep Mehta, J. These three miscellaneous petitions have been referred by the petitioners herein for assailing the legality and validity of the F.I.R. No. 201/2013 registered by the Anti Corruption Bureau, Outpost Jaisalmer or the offences under Sections 13 (1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120-B I.P.C. 2. The F.I.R. has been challenged principally on the ground that the same is nothing but a second F.I.R. on the same facts. The F.I.R. under challenge was lodged by the respondent No. 2 Bahadur Khan son of Aamad Khan, resident of Gafoor Bhatta, Jaisalmer. In order to seek quashing of the F.I.R., the petitioners have placed on record, copy of another F.I.R. No. 351/2011 registered at the Police Station Jaisalmer for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 34, 217 and 218 I.P.C. at the instance of the respondent No. 2 Bahadur than himself. 3. Sarva Shri Manish Shishodia, Vikas Balia and Mahesh Thanvi, learned Counsel representing the respective accused-petitioners, relied upon the following judgments in support of their contentions and urged that as the allegations levelled in the impugned F.I.R. and those levelled in the F.I.R. No. 351/2011 are exactly identical, it virtually amounts to registration of a second F.I.R. on the same facts and such an action is impressible in law as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court:- (i) T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala & Ors., (2001) 6 SCC 181 ; (ii) Mohan Baitha & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Anr., (2001) 4 SCC 350 ; (iii) Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash & Ors., (2004) 13 SCC 292 ; (iv) Nirmal Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab & Ors., (2009) 1 SCC 441 ; (v) Babubhai v. State of Gujarat & Ors. . (2010) 12 SCC 254 ; (vi) Anju Chaudhary v. State of U.P. & Anr., (2013) 6 SCC 384 ; (vii) Surender Kaushik & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., (2013) 5 SCC 148 ; (viii) Shiv Shankar Singh v. State of Bihar & Anr., (2012) 1 SCC 130 ; (ix) Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. CBI & Anr., (2013) 6 SCC 348 ; (x) Awadesh Kumar Jha & Ors. v. The State of Bihar, (2016) 3 SCC 8 . 4. They thus urged that while accepting the miscellaneous petitions, the impugned F.I.R. should be quashed. 5. v. The State of Bihar, (2016) 3 SCC 8 . 4. They thus urged that while accepting the miscellaneous petitions, the impugned F.I.R. should be quashed. 5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor Shri A.S. Rathore assisted by Shri Jitendra Singh, the Circle Inspector, ACB and Shri Pradeep Shah, learned Counsel representing the complainant-respondent, vehemently opposed the arguments of the petitioners' Counsel and urged that the allegations as set out in the F.I.R. registered by the Anti Corruption Bureau are singnificantly different from the ones investigated by the Investigating Officer of the Police Station Jaisalmer in F.I.R. No. 351/2011. Thus, they urged that the judgments relied upon by the petitioners' Counsel have no application whatsoever and the impugned F.I.R. is not liable to be interfered at this stage. 6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel representing the parties and have gone through the material available on record. 7. The earlier F.I.R. No. 351/2011 which was registered at the Police Station Jaisalmer at the instance of the complainant Bahadur Khan, was based on the allegation that valuable lands belonging to the Municipality were got fraudulently allotted in the name of ineligible persons. The accused arraigned in the said F.I.R. with the exception of Narayan Lal and Basanti Mathur are common in both the F.I.Rs. The impugned F.I.R., too contains almost the identical allegations which formed the basis of the F.I.R. No. 351/2011 referred to above. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above referred judgments has, in no unequivocal terms, laid down that normally, no second F.I.R. should be registered when another F.I.R. has already been registered for the same allegations. It would be desirable that the investigation of a fresh F.I.R. for similar allegations should be consolidated with the F.I.R. registered earlier rather than, registering a second report. 8. On going through the material available on record, it is evident that the earlier F.I.R. No. 351/2011 was investigated by the local police which, after investigation gave a negative final report in the matter. The negative final report too has been placed on record of the miscellaneous petitions. I have carefully gone through the two F.I.Rs. and the negative final report and am satisfied that the reasons enumerated in the final report for giving a clean chit to the accused are far from satisfactory. The negative final report too has been placed on record of the miscellaneous petitions. I have carefully gone through the two F.I.Rs. and the negative final report and am satisfied that the reasons enumerated in the final report for giving a clean chit to the accused are far from satisfactory. The final report is pending consideration of the competent Court on the protest petition of the complainant. The fresh F.I.R, which was registered by the officials of the Anti Corruption Bureau, includes the allegation of the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Needless to say that the local police is not competent to investigate the matter involving such offence. Thus, the ends of justice require that while consolidating the two F.I.Rs, further investigation of the earlier F.I.R. should be directed to be conducted by the Anti Corruption Bureau so that, the veracity of allegations involving criminal misconduct by the public servants can also be thoroughly investigated. Thus, while exercising the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., this Court is of the firm opinion that the ends of justice require that further investigation of the earlier F.I.R. No. 351/2011, which is presently pending at the stage of consideration of the final report, should be conducted by the Anti Corruption Bureau. 9. Consequently, the miscellaneous petitions are disposed of in the following terms. 10. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaisalmer is directed to forward the entire file of Final Report No. 136/2011 arising from F.I.R. No. 351/2011, Police Station Jaisalmer to the Anti Corruption Bureau, Jaisalmer for further investigation. The officials of the Anti Corruption Bureau, shall consolidate both the F.I.Rs. and conduct further investigation in matter and file the result thereof in the concerned Court within a period of one year from the date of receiving the copy of this order. Stay applications are also disposed of. The petitioners shall beat liberty to furnish their representation to the Investigating Officer for ventilating their grievances and for proving their innocence. The Investigating Officer shall give due consideration to such representations before filing result of investigation in the concerned Court. A copy of this order be placed in each file.