Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1933 (ALL)

Piyush Prabhakar v. State of U. P.

2022-12-07

SUNEET KUMAR, SYED WAIZ MIAN

body2022
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Shri Anurag Khanna, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Ravi Prakash Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. appearing for the State. 2. Petitions are being decided by a common judgment and order as they arise from the same facts and incident on the consent of the parties. 3. Despite notice, counsel appearing for the fourth respondent has not filed counter affidavit, nor, has he put in appearance. 4. Petitioners in the bunch of petitions are the officials of the HDFC Bank Ltd., which include, Managing Director, Additional Managing Director, Company Secretary, Chief Finance Officer and the Branch Manager of the Branch. The complainant is the customer of HDFC bank, having a saving bank account. 5. For the sake of convenience, the facts setforth in the Writ Petition No. 9842 of 2020 (Piyush Prabhakar and Another vs. State of U.P. and Others) is being referred to. 6. HDFC bank is engaged in the business of banking and financial services, duly registered with the Reserve Bank of India, having its registered office at Mumbai (Maharashtra). The bank has various branch all over India, including, the branch at Agra. The complainant/respondent No. 4 is customer of bank having account (Saving Account No. 01211000207684) at the Agra Branch. 7. First petitioner is the Branch Manager, HDFC Bank Ltd. at Agra, since 29.04.2019. It is submitted that the petitioner was not posted at the branch at the relevant point of time i.e. January 2018, during the period when the alleged debit took place from the bank account of the informant. 8. The informant had earlier lodged FIR being Case Crime No. 0083 of 2018, dated 03.02.2018, at Police Station Hariparwat, Agra, against the bank officials and one Dharmendra Singh. It is alleged that the informant in his bank account was having balance at Rs. 1,00,69,633/- as on 17.01.2018. It is alleged that on an enquiry of his bank account on 02.02.2018, it transpired that informant was having balance at Rs. 1,99,574.41 paisa only, thereby, a sum at Rs. 98,70,000/- was fraudulently in connivance with the bank officials was transferred in the account of Dharmendra Singh of the same branch. It is further alleged that the account of the informant was attached by the Income Tax officials, therefore, it was alleged that the amount could not have been withdrawn from the account without connivance of the bank officials. 98,70,000/- was fraudulently in connivance with the bank officials was transferred in the account of Dharmendra Singh of the same branch. It is further alleged that the account of the informant was attached by the Income Tax officials, therefore, it was alleged that the amount could not have been withdrawn from the account without connivance of the bank officials. It is informed that the Investigating Officer in the said case crime has filed charge-sheet against six persons on 25.04.2018 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 419 and 411 IPC, including bank officials. 9. The impugned FIR was subsequently lodged by the informant on the same allegations and arising from the same incident, but the only fact that was further alleged is that the saving bank account of the informant was subsequently released by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, vide order dated 18.10.2021, but the bank withheld the amount and has not released it to the informant. 10. In this backdrop, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that lodging of the second FIR arising from the same facts and incident is gross misuse of process of the court and would be barred in view of the mandate of T.T. Antony vs. State of Kerala and Others, (2001) 6 SCC 181 which has subsequently been followed in Vijay Kumar Ghai and Others vs. State of West Bengal and Others, (2022) 7 SCC 124 and Tarak Dash Mukharjee and Others vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2022 Live Law (SC) 731. 11. It is further submitted that the entire amount that was due and admissible to the informant has already been released in due course by the bank and a sum at Rs. 1,00,000/- was deducted towards policy excess (Insurance) which the informant is not entitled. It is urged that for this reason the cause to pursue the complainant no longer survives for the complainant. 12. The only question that arises is whether the second FIR arising from the same allegations would be maintainable or not. 13. Supreme Court in Krishna Lal Chawla and Others vs. State of U.P. and Another, (2021) 5 SCC 435 observed that multiple complaints by the same party against the same accused in respect of the same incident is impermissible. 12. The only question that arises is whether the second FIR arising from the same allegations would be maintainable or not. 13. Supreme Court in Krishna Lal Chawla and Others vs. State of U.P. and Another, (2021) 5 SCC 435 observed that multiple complaints by the same party against the same accused in respect of the same incident is impermissible. Permitting multiple complaints by the same party in respect of the same incident, whether it involves a cognizable or private complaint offence, will lead to the accused being entangled in numerous criminal proceedings. As such he would be forced to keep surrendering his liberty and precious time before the police and the courts, as and when required in each case. 14. The legality of the second FIR was extensively discussed by Supreme Court in T.T. Antony (supra). It was held that there can be no second FIR where the information concerns the same cognizable offence alleged in the first FIR or the same occurrence or incident which gives rise to one or more cognizable offences. It was further held that once an FIR postulated by the provisions of Section 154 of Cr.P.C. has been recorded, any information received after the commencement of investigation cannot form the basis of a second FIR as doing so would fail to comport with the scheme of the Cr.P.C. The Court further held that barring situations in which a counter- case is filed, a fresh investigation or a second FIR on the basis of the same or connected cognizable offence would constitute an “abuse of the statutory power of investigation” and may be a fit case for the exercise of power either under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. or Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 15. If multiple First Information Reports by the same person against the same accused are permitted to be registered in respect of the same set of facts and allegations, it will result in the accused getting entangled in multiple criminal proceedings for the same alleged offence, the registration of such multiple FIRs is nothing but abuse of process of law. 16. The same principle was reiterated in Vijay Kumar Ghai and Others vs. State of West Bengal and Others, (2022) 7 SCC 124 and Tarak Dash Mukharjee and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, 2022 Live Law (SC) 731. 17. 16. The same principle was reiterated in Vijay Kumar Ghai and Others vs. State of West Bengal and Others, (2022) 7 SCC 124 and Tarak Dash Mukharjee and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, 2022 Live Law (SC) 731. 17. The impugned FIR is reproduction of the allegations made by the complainant in his earlier FIR alleging that the officials of the bank in connivance with one Dharmendra Singh, a customer of the bank at Agra branch, transferred a substantial amount of money from the saving bank account of the complainant, at a time when the saving bank account of the complainant was attached by the Income Tax Department. The further additional allegation made in the impugned FIR by the complainant is that the bank withheld/delayed the release of the money to the complainant upon release of the saving bank account by the order of the competent court. 18. The allegation of the complainant that the money of his saving bank account was withheld and not paid to the complainant promptly; even on taking the allegation on face value it would not constitute an offence. The purpose of the second FIR appears to have been lodged with an ulterior motive to coerce the officials of the branch to permit the complainant to operate the saving bank account and withdraw his money. It is also a case of malicious prosecution. 19. In State of Haryana and Others vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 considered in detail the scope of the High Court powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the FIR and referred to several judicial precedents and held that the High Court should not embark upon an inquiry into the merits and demerits of the allegations and quash the proceedings without allowing the investigating agency to complete its task. The Court, inter-alia, identified the following cases in which FIR/complaint can be quashed: “102. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2)................. The Court, inter-alia, identified the following cases in which FIR/complaint can be quashed: “102. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2)................. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala-fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 20. Having regard to the undisputed facts as noted hereinabove, the impugned FIR being second FIR for the same cause and incident, registration of such multiple FIR is nothing but abuse of process of law. 21. In view of the above, writ petitions are allowed. 22. Accordingly the impugned FIR dated 16.08.2020, registered as Case Crime No. 0326 of 2018, under Sections 409 IPC at Police Station Hari Parvat, District Agra, is quashed.