Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 190 (UTT)

Heena Thapa v. Central Bureau of Investigation

2024-03-14

VIVEK BHARTI SHARMA

body2024
JUDGMENT : Vivek Bharti Sharma, J. By means of present C482 petition, petitioner seeks to quash the order dated 22.01.2024 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Dehradun in Criminal Case No.01 of 2024 “CBI vs. Sudhir Kumar Windlass & Ors.” and the common charge sheet dated 28.12.2024 filed by the respondent-CBI in the said case. 2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused would submit the present petition has been filed with limited prayer to challenge the clubbing of two distinct FIRS in a single charge-sheet by the respondent-CBI. 3. He would submit that admittedly in the instant case two FIRs were filed being FIR No.13 of 2022 dated 09.01.2022 (RC00720023S0002) and FIR No.31 of 2022 dated 25.01.2022 (RC0072023S0004); that, a bare reading of two FIRs would show that while first FIR i.e. RC No.002 relates to an alleged incident of impersonation in execution of sale deed dated 18.05.2010, the second FIR i.e. RC No.004 pertains to another sale deed dated 09.06.2021; that, the petitioner is arrayed as Accused No.13 in this second FIR RC004 and has nothing to do with RC002, however, respondent-CBI has filed a common charge-sheet in two distinct FIRs despite the fact that the alleged offences are distinct by virtue of different set of accused persons and the incidents of commission of offence are also different. 4. To buttress his submissions, learned Senior Counsel would refer the case of “T.T. Antony vs. State of Kerala (2001) 6 SCC 181 ” and would submit that the law propounded in this judgment prohibits culminating the investigations of two different FIRs in a single charge sheet. 5. Learned Senior counsel would further place reliance upon a judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in re “State of Karnataka vs. Greenbuds Agro Form Ltd. (2021) SCC Online Kar 12475” wherein the Division Bench of said Court held that filing a common charge-sheet for the various crime registered in different Police Stations is impermissible. 6. Learned Senior Counsel would further place reliance on the judgment in “State of U.P. vs. Singhara Singh, 1963 SCC Online SC 23” and would submit that if a statute has conferred a power to do an act and has laid down the method in which that power has to be exercised, it necessarily prohibits the doing of the act in any other manner than that which has been prescribed. 7. 7. He would also refer “J. Jayalalithaa vs. State of Karnataka (2014) 2 SCC 401 ” which says that where a statute requires to do a certain thing in a certain way the thing must be done in that way and not contrary to it at all. Other methods or mode of performance are impliedly and necessarily forbidden. 8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent-CBI would submit that the original crime/FIR No.13/2022, P.S. Rajpur Dehradun was registered on 09.01.2022 u/s 120-B r/w 420, 467, 468, 471 and 506 IPC on the basis of written complaint of Sanjay Singh against the accused persons Sudhir Kumar Windlass and Ravi Dayal alleging that Sudhir Kumar Windlass in criminal conspiracy with his employee Ravi Dayal got a false sale deed dated 18.05.2010 registered in favour of Ravi Dayal at the Sub Registrar Office, Dehradun pertaining to their land khasra no.222/1 Min (New khasra no. 413 Ä] 434 Ä] 436 [k½ at Village Mauja Johari, Dehradun wherein they did not sell the said land. The parties and the witnesses in the sale deed were either employees of Sudhir Windlass or their family members. Further, Ajay Singh, brother of the complainant who was shown as a seller in the sale deed had already passed away. Subsequently, the said sale deed was got cancelled by the accused persons from the Civil Court, Dehradun. 9. Learned counsel for CBI would further submit that another FIR No.31/2022 was registered for the same offences by the same complainant i.e. Sanjay Singh with allegations that, as mentioned in the first FIR, that accused Sudhir Kumar Windlass entered into a criminal conspiracy with other co-accused persons including the present petitioner Heena Thapa and in furtherance of this conspiracy a sale deed was prepared and registered on 09.06.2021 of the same land i.e. khasra No.222/1 notwithstanding the fact that this land had already been sold by Late Gangbahadur to one Smt. Usha Gupta vide sale deed dated 22.11.1983; that, the present petitioner/accused was an employee of the main accused Sudhir Kumar Windlass. 10. He would further submit that the allegations in both the FIRs are of similar nature that the main accused Sudhir Kumar Windlass with other co-accused persons including the present petitioner, who were actually the relative and employees of Sudhir Kumar Windlass, has conspired to illegally capture and grab the land of the complainant and his family. 10. He would further submit that the allegations in both the FIRs are of similar nature that the main accused Sudhir Kumar Windlass with other co-accused persons including the present petitioner, who were actually the relative and employees of Sudhir Kumar Windlass, has conspired to illegally capture and grab the land of the complainant and his family. He would further submit that the land in question is the same, the complainant/victim is the same, majority of the prosecution evidences, both documentary and oral are also common, therefore, in the interest of justice and to avoid multiplicity of litigation after investigation a common charge-sheet has been filed. He would further submit that filing a common charge-sheet shall not cause any prejudice to either party rather all will be benefitted by the same. 11. To bolster his submissions, learned counsel for CBI would place reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in re “Balbir vs. State of Haryana, AIR (2000) 1 SCC 285 ” and “Anju Chaudhary vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another (2013) 6 SCC 384 ”. 12. Heard submissions of learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the material available on record. 13. From the perusal of record, it is abundantly clear that the complainant/victim of both the FIRs is one and the same and the land in question is also the same. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in re “C. Muniapppan and others vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2010) 9 SCC 567 ” has held in para-37 as under:- “37. The submission on behalf of the appellants that two crimes bearing Nos.188 and 190 of 2000 could not be clubbed together, has also no merit for the simple reason that if the cases are considered, keeping in view the totality of the circumstances and the sequence in which the two incidents occurred, taking into consideration the evidence of drivers and conductors/cleaners of the vehicles involved in the first incident and the evidence of C. Ramasundaram, VAO (PW 87) we reach the inescapable conclusion that the second occurrence was nothing but a fall out of the first occurrence. The damage caused to the public transport vehicles and the consequential burning of the University bus remained part of one and the same incident. Merely because two separate complaints had been lodged, did not mean that they could not be clubbed together and one charge-sheet could not be filed.” 14. The damage caused to the public transport vehicles and the consequential burning of the University bus remained part of one and the same incident. Merely because two separate complaints had been lodged, did not mean that they could not be clubbed together and one charge-sheet could not be filed.” 14. In view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in C. Muniappan case (supra), it is not always the case that two distinct FIRs cannot be clubbed and after investigation single charge-sheet cannot be filed. In considered view of this Court and if the cases are considered keeping in view the totality of the circumstances and the sequence in which the two incidents occurred, taking into consideration the evidence involved in the first FIR and the evidence in second FIR this Court is of the inescapable conclusion that the second occurrence was nothing but a fall out of the first occurrence. The complainant/victim, majority of the accused persons, evidences to be led to prove the case of the prosecution against the accused persons are all identical and the same. In such circumstances, there is nothing illegal in filing one single charge-sheet for two separate FIRs. 15. Insofar as the case of T.T. Antony (supra) is concerned, the same is not applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case. The law settled in this judgment is that 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. It is pertinent to mention that in later judgment in re C. Muniappan (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down that common charge-sheet can be filed. 16. As regards to the law propounded in Singhara Singh (supra) and J. Jayalalithaa (supra), it is nothing but reiteration of law that if a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner and in no other manner, following some other course is not permissible. 16. As regards to the law propounded in Singhara Singh (supra) and J. Jayalalithaa (supra), it is nothing but reiteration of law that if a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner and in no other manner, following some other course is not permissible. In the present case, the Investigating Agency after registration of the FIRs, conducted investigations and on the basis of evidence collected, has filed a common charge-sheet in respect of these two FIRs just to secure the ends of justice and also to save the time of justice dispensation machinery as well as to avoid the multiplicity of proceedings. 17. It is settled law that inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. can be exercised to secure ends of justice, prevent abuse of the process of any court and to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, depending upon the facts of a given case. The court can always take note of any miscarriage of justice and prevent the same by exercising its powers u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. However, such inherent powers are to be exercised sparingly and with caution. In the considered opinion of this Court, there is neither abuse of the process of law nor any miscarriage caused to the petitioner by filing of single charge-sheet for two FIRs. 18. In view of the foregoing discussion, there is no merit in the present C482 petition. Same is hereby dismissed in limine.