Bombay High Court
Rajiv Suryakant Mehta vs The Commissioner Of Police And Ors on 17 December, 2024
Author: Bharati Dangre
Bench: Bharati Dangre
2024:BHC-AS:50675-DB
1/20 Wp 2079-17 J.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 2079 OF 2017
Rajiv Suryakant Mehta .. Petitioner
Versus
The Commissioner of Police & Ors .. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 765 OF 2016
Yogin Pravinchand Jhaveri .. Petitioner
Versus
The Commissioner of Police & Ors .. Respondents
...
Mr. Subhash Jha with Ms.Apeksha Sharma, Mr.Sumeet
Upadhyay, Ms.Neha Balani and Mr.Deepesh Shahani i/b M/s.Law
Global Advocates for the petitioner.
Mr.J.P. Yagnik, APP for the State.
CORAM :BHARATI DANGRE &
MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ
RESERVED: 20th AUGUST, 2024
PRONOUNCED : 17th DECEMBER, 2024
JUDGMENT:
– (Per Bharati Dangre, J)
1 The two Writ Petitions before us seek a common
relief of quashing and setting aside FIR No.115/2015 of D.B.
Tilak
::: Uploaded on – 06/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 11/01/2025 00:09:01 :::
2/20 Wp 2079-17 J.doc
Marg police station, FIR No. 162/2015 registered with Gamdevi
police station and FIR No.284/2015 of L.T. Marg police station,
along with the cases pending before the distinct Magistrates
arising out of the said C.Rs. In addition, both the Writ Petitions
claim compensation for causing harassment by the respondents in
conducting the investigation in the three C.Rs which pursuant to
the order passed by this Court was investigated by D.B. Marg
police station.
In addition, a direction is also sought to the
respondent no.1 to hold a Departmental Enquiry against the
police personnel responsible for causing the harassment to the
petitioner by registering multiple FIRs.
Pending the hearing and final disposal of the petition,
it is prayed that the proceedings before the Magistrate in all the
three C.Rs be stayed.
2. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2079/2017 is
Rajeev Suryakant Mehta, whereas the petitioner in WP
No.765/2016 is one Yogin Pravinchand Jhaveri. The respondents
impleaded in the petition are the Commissioner of Police,
Crawford Market, Mumbai, State of Maharashtra, through D.B.
Marg police station, Mumbai, as well as Sr. Inspector of Police of
L.T. Marg police station and Gamdevi police station along with
the complainant Bhavesh Navinchandra Shah.
The petitions are filed by invoking the extra-ordinary
jurisdiction of this Court vested under Article 226 of the
Tilak
::: Uploaded on – 06/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 11/01/2025 00:09:01 :::
3/20 Wp 2079-17 J.doc
Constitution as well as the inherent power u/s.482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure and the basis of the reliefs claimed in the
petition as set out therein, is to the effect that the multiple
proceedings initiated at different police stations are nothing but
transactions which are civil in nature and the continuation of the
criminal proceedings in three different courts, is no short of
misuse and abuse of the process of law and therefore, the same
deserve to be quashed and set aside.
3. We have heard Mr.Jha, learned counsel for the
petitioner who has placed before us a series of decisions, to submit
that despite filing of charge-sheet, this Court can exercise it’s
power u/s.482 of Cr.P.C, if the continuation of proceedings
would amount to miscarriage of justice to the accused. It is the
submission of Mr.Jha that on account of the same cause of action,
three separate FIRs have been registered against the petitioners
out of sheer vendetta, and he would rely upon the decision of the
Apex Court in case of Prakash Agarwal Vs. Benzoplast Ltd and
anr, and also the decision in case of Radhey Shyam vs. State of
Haryana,1 which had directed clubbing of distinct FIRs since it
was found that the trials can proceed together so as to avoid
multiplicity of proceedings which is in interest of larger public
interest.
It is also submitted by Mr.Jha that the complainant
has resorted to forum shopping as he approached different police
1 (202)SCC Online 1935
Tilak
::: Uploaded on – 06/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 11/01/2025 00:09:01 :::
4/20 Wp 2079-17 J.doc
stations with the same grievance, and therefore, registration of the
three distinct FIRs is hit by the principle of law laid down by T.T.
Antony Vs. State of Kerala2. Reliance is also placed upon the
decision of the Apex Court in case of State of Andhra Pradesh Vs.
Cheemalapati Ganeswara Rao & Anr3 which has assigned a
meaning to the term “same transaction” and applied the aforesaid
test, according to Mr.Jha, the complaints filed in three distinct
police stations arise out of the same transaction i.e. the transaction
consisting either of a single act or of a series of connected acts and
therefore, it was not permissible for the authorities to have
distinct FIRs registered in three different police stations.
Mr.Jha is opposed by Mr.Akshay Patil, representing
no.2 and the respective Assistant Public Prosecutors Mr.Gavand
and Mr.Yagnik.
4. With the able assistance of the respective counsel, we
have perused the facts enumerated in the two writ petitions
involving the three C.Rs, corresponding to the reliefs claimed in
the two petitions. We must set out the factual matrix in a
consequential manner as three FIR have been filed in three
distinct police stations, in which the petitioners are arraigned as
accused.
FIR No. 115/2015 came to be registered in D.B. Marg
police station on the complaint filed by Bhavesh N. Shah who
alleged that the complainant is engaged in the business of
2 (2001) 6 SCC 181
3 AIR 1963 SC 1850
Tilak
::: Uploaded on – 06/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 11/01/2025 00:09:01 :::
5/20 Wp 2079-17 J.doc
diamonds and on the demand of the customer, gold and diamond
jewellery is supplied by his Company. The modus operandi of
the businesses contemplated that the brokers dealing in diamonds
along with their customers visit the complainant and as per the
choice of the customer, gold and diamond studded ornaments are
picked up by them him. As against this, a ”jangad pavti’ is
prepared and the signature of the person who had picked up the
ornaments, is obtained. The diamonds are thereafter shown to
the customer and if he is satisfied with the goods and its quality,
he purchase the said ornaments and make payment. The other
pieces of jewellery which are not chosen by the customer are
deposited back with the complainant, and thereafter, the jangad
receipt is cancelled in presence of the broker.
The complainant alleged that in the course of this
business activity, the petitioner who was introduced to him by a
broker Mehul Ashwin Mehta entered into transactions in the
aforesaid manner. It is the claim of the complainant that on
28/8/2014, he entrusted the petitioner, diamond studded gold
ornaments worth Rs.1,50,03,044/- and the petitioner was
expected to make the payment, after sell of the ornaments within
a period of 30 to 35 days. A jangad receipt to that effect was also
executed which was signed by the petitioner Rajeev Mehta in
presence of Hiredalal Mehul.
Pursuant to this, a cheque of Rs.20 lakhs was issued
in the name of ‘Anaya Jewellers’, the Company of the
Tilak
::: Uploaded on – 06/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 11/01/2025 00:09:01 :::
6/20 Wp 2079-17 J.doc
complainant dated 18/9/2014. Upon deposit of this cheque, the
complainant handed over the diamond studded ornaments to
him.
Since the time limit for sell of the ornaments was
likely to expire, the complainant established contact with Rajiv
Mehta and he was informed that he was in negotiation with the
customer and he requested for extension of the timeline. Once
again, the complainant established contact with the broker Mehul
Mehta, who informed him that Rajiv Mehta is in some difficulty
and he was told to make the payment or return the goods.
The complainant from time to time, established
contact with Rajiv Mehta, and as per his direction, the cheque
given by him was deposited in the Bank which was dishonored
and an intimation in that regard was forwarded to Mr.Mehta.
Pursuant thereto, when the complainant requested its goods back,
he was informed that he was informed that he is sending one
person with a cheque and accordingly, a cheque was handed over
to him.
The cheque was issued in the name of State Bank of
India and it was in the amount of Rs.25 lakhs with a number
assigned to it.
Before depositing the cheque, when the complainant
approached the Manager of State Bank, on verification, he was
informed that there is a discrepancy in the person issuing the
cheque and the account holder, and it was concluded that the
Tilak
::: Uploaded on – 06/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 11/01/2025 00:09:01 :::
7/20 Wp 2079-17 J.doc
cheque is forged and therefore, it was not deposited.
Once again, when the complainant confronted
Mr.Mehta with the aforesaid development, he was threatened and
this constrained him to approach the police station by filing a
complaint which was registered as FIR No.115/2015 by invoking
Sections 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 r/w Section 34 of the IPC.
5. During the course of investigation, CDRs were
obtained and the statement of the Manager of State Bank of
India, was also recorded. Rajeev Mehta came to be arrested and
on completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed in the
Court of 18th Metropolitan Magistrate, Girgaum, Mumbai.
Alleging that he, in connivance with the wanted accused, Chintan
Shah, Nikhil Shah, Chirag Mehta, Kalpesh Shah and Krishna
Maheshwari, had committed the offence punishable u/s.420, 465
467, 468 of the IPC, and have forged the cheque of Rs.25 lakhs,
and handed it over to the complainant to be believed as a genuine
document.
6. In addition to the above FIR, two more complaints
are lodged with Gamdevi police station and L.T. Marg police
station on 27/5/2015 and 5/8/2015. C.R.No. 284/2015 is
registered when Bhavesh N. Shah referred to another transaction
entered with the intervention of Mehul Mehta, when he handed
over diamond studded jewellery with an approximated value of
Rs.72,75,008/- with an assurance that he will make the payment
for the same within 60 days and also forwarded some cheques
Tilak
::: Uploaded on – 06/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 11/01/2025 00:09:01 :::
8/20 Wp 2079-17 J.doc
which were presented between September 2014 to March 2015,
which could not be honored. It is alleged that from time to time,
when he attempted to establish contact with the petitioner, his
response was evasive and at subsequent point of time, even he
stopped responding. Another C.R No. 162/2015 was also
registered with Gamdevi police station on the very same day,
which invoke Sections 409, 420, 506 of the IPC, where similar
accusations were levelled against the same complainant against
the accused Rajiv Mehta and co-accused Yogin Jhaveri.
7. Alleging that there is multiplicity of FIR lodged by
the respondent, with a request that they should be investigated by
one police station, as he was facing harassment by requiring to
attend multiple police stations, Yogin Zaveri filed Writ Petition
No. 3658/2015 before this Court. On 30/10/2015, recording
that as far as C.R.No. 115/2015 was concerned on completion of
investigation, the charge-sheet was filed, but the police were
investigated u/s.173(8) of Cr.P.C, whereas the other two C.Rs
were pending for investigation, the contention of the petitioner
was recorded that all the three C.Rs pertain to the transaction
spreading over period of three days.
As far as Yogin Jhaveri is concerned, he was arraigned
as accused in C.R.No. 115/2015 registered with D.B. Marg police
station and in C.R.No. 284/2015 registered with L.T. Marg police
station. The Division Bench recorded thus :-
“7 The above facts reveal that in respect of transaction
between complainant – respondent no.6 and Rajiv MehtaTilak
::: Uploaded on – 06/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 11/01/2025 00:09:01 :::
9/20 Wp 2079-17 J.docregarding sale of gold diamond studded jewellery, all the
aforesaid 3 Crs are registered in respect of the transactions
occurred within the period 13 days. All the Crs are in respect of
similar transactions.
8 Learned APP, on instructions, makes a statement that D.B.
Marg police station is ready and willing to investigate all the
three C.Rs and all the FIRs may be clubbed with the FIR
registered at D.B. Marg police station and may be directed to be
investigated together. As of today, no FIR is registered with
BKC police station.”
The Court therefore, directed respondent no.1 to club
all the three FIRs together and the Investigating Officer in
C.R.No. 115/2015 registered with D.B. Marg police station was
directed to investigate all the three C.Rs.
Admittedly, the petitioner at that time, did not raise a
grievance that three C.Rs could not have been registered in three
different police stations, as they related to the same transaction,
but on the other hand, the petitioners sought investigation of the
said C.Rs by one police station and the order was accordingly
passed.
Pursuant to the investigation being completed,
charge-sheets have been filed in the Court of Metropolitan
Magistrate’s 18th Court, Girgaum.
8. The petitioner was directed to be released on bail by
recording that the transaction is of civil profile and in the wake of
the specific observation by the concerned Court, while releasing
him on bail, that the dispute is of civil nature and merely because
the cheques have been dishonored or the petitioner has delayed
the payment, do not necessarily constitute the offence invoked
Tilak
::: Uploaded on – 06/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 11/01/2025 00:09:01 :::
10/20 Wp 2079-17 J.doc
against him, Mr.Jha has prayed for quashing of the FIR, primarily,
on two counts; (i) the transactions mentioned in the complaint
which resulted into registration of three FIRs, do not attract a
criminal offence, as mere failure to keep the promise does not
constitute an offence of cheating and/or breach of trust and (ii)
the FIR is prayed to be quashed on the ground that though the
acts complained of, are of fall out of the same transaction entered
into between the complainant and the petitioner, the filing of
three FIRs and upon their conclusion, filing of three charge-
sheets, is unwarranted.
9. It is the specific contention of Mr.Jha that all the three
FIRs have been lodged with oblique and ulterior motive of
entangling the petitioner in criminal offences and with a design
and plan to ensure that he is kept in custody for a long period of
time, and as a result, he being admitted to bail in connection with
the offences registered with Gamdevi police station and L.T. Marg
police station, he languished in jail for considerably long period of
time, despite the fact that the co-accused was released on bail.
Pursuant to the filing of the charge-sheet, the
petitioner had instituted Writ Petition, seeking quashment of the
three FIRs, but when the charge-sheet was filed, in all the three
aforesaid cases, which amounted to substantial change in the facts,
situation and circumstances, the earlier petition filed by the
petitioner was withdrawn on 5/4/2017 by reserving the liberty to
file fresh petition.
Tilak
::: Uploaded on - 06/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2025 00:09:01 :::
11/20 Wp 2079-17 J.doc
By order dated 5/4/2017, Writ Petition was directed
to be withdrawn with liberty to file fresh petition so as to impugn
the charge-sheet as well.
10. Once again, pressing for the same relief of quashing
of the three FIRs, despite filing of charge-sheet, Mr.Jha has
invoked principle of law laid down in a catena of decisions, in
support of his submission that despite filing of charge-sheet, if the
Court arrive at a conclusion that the continuation of the
proceedings against the accused persons, is unjustified, the
petition should be entertained and in this case, when the
petitioner was directed to be enlarged on bail, the Court had
categorically recorded that the transaction involved is prima facie
of ‘civil nature’.
12. Mr.Jha has attempted to persuade us about the
malafide act of the complainant and according to him, by using
his clout and influence and in collusion and in connivance with
the police officials, he entangled the petitioner in three different
cases and assertively, Mr.Jha has submitted that all the three
offences occurred within a short span of 13 days and therefore,
assuming that an offence was made out, according to Mr.Jha,
there could have been only one FIR registered, instead of
registering three different FIRs, but it is his specific contention
that the petitioner with oblique and ulterior motive, intended
that the petitioner languishes in custody for fairly long period of
Tilak
::: Uploaded on – 06/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 11/01/2025 00:09:01 :::
12/20 Wp 2079-17 J.doc
time and the whole idea in registering three different FIRs was
that he shall be picked up in each case, one after other, and this is
what was precisely intended by the petitioner. The growing
tendency of giving cloak of a criminal offence to the transaction
which are purely of civil profile, according to Mr.Jha, is gaining
momentum and therefore, it is his prayer that apart from
quashing the criminal prosecution against the petitioner,
appropriate action on the administrative side deserve to be taken
against the police personnel and the petitioner deserve to be
compensated for his prolonged detention/custody as many as 157
days, as he was made to undergo the ordeal and trauma of
arrest/detention in police/judicial custody and he was subjected to
social ridicule.
13. The scope of the power of the High Court u/s.482 of
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, permits its exercise, sparingly
and only when it necessiates to prevent the abuse of process of
any Court or to secure the ends of justice. While examining a
petition which seek quashing of a charge-sheet filed, upon
completion of investigation by the Agency, it is persistently held
that it is not permissible for the High Court to conduct a mini-
trial at this stage, which is also not permitted at the time of
deciding a petition seeking discharge, as the charges are required
to be proved during trial on the basis of the evidence led.
Tilak
::: Uploaded on - 06/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2025 00:09:01 :::
13/20 Wp 2079-17 J.doc
In Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Aryan Singh 4,
the Hon’ble Apex Court has cautioned the Courts in exercising
the power u/s. 482 of the Code, when it deserve as under:-
“10 From the impugned common judgment and order passed by
the High Court, it appears that the High Court has dealt with the
proceedings before it, as if, the High Court was conducting a mini
trial and/or the High Court was considering the applications against
the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court on
conclusion of trial. As per the cardinal principle of law, at the stage of
discharge and/or quashing of the criminal proceedings, while
exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court is not
required to conduct the mini trial. The High Court in the common
impugned judgment and order has observed that the charges against
the accused are not proved. This is not the stage where the
prosecution / investigating agency is/are required to prove the
charges. The charges are required to be proved during the trial on the
basis of the evidence led by the prosecution / investigating agency.
Therefore, the High Court has materially erred in going in detail in
the allegations and the material collected during the course of the
investigation against the accused, at this stage. At the stage of
discharge and/or while exercising the powers under Section 482
Cr.P.C., the Court has a very limited jurisdiction and is required to
consider “whether any sufficient material is available to proceed
further against the accused for which the accused is required to be
tried or not”.
14. One more contention which was advanced before the
Apex Court and which was considered by the High Court was,
initiation of criminal proceedings being malicious and the
Supreme Court commented that the High Court had erred in
observing that the stage of exercise of power under Section 482
that the initiation of criminal proceedings, is malicious as this
question could not be considered at this stage, but must be
determined at the conclusion of the trial and at the stage of
entertaining a petition u/s.482 of Cr.P.C, what is required to be
considered is a prima facie case and the material collected during
4 2023 SCC Online SC 379
Tilak
::: Uploaded on – 06/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 11/01/2025 00:09:01 :::
14/20 Wp 2079-17 J.doc
the course of investigation which warranted the accused to be
tried.
15. In Abhishek vs. State of Madhya Pradesh,5 the Apex
Court clarified the position in law by reiterating that the High
Court would continue to have the power to entertain and act
upon a petition filed u/s/.482 of Cr.P.C to quash the FIR even
when a charge-sheet is filed by the police during the pendency of
such petition, and this principle was reiterated in Anand Kumar
Mohatta Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), Department of Home6. The
contors of the power to quash criminal proceedings u/s. Section
482 of Cr.P.C, were reiterated by invoking the inherent
jurisdiction of the High Court, it is wholly impermissible for the
High Court to enter into the factual arena, so as to adjudge the
correctness of the allegations in the complaint.
Invoking the well settled principle that the power of
quashing should be sparingly exercised, with circumspection and
in the rarest of rare case, it was emphasized that the Court shall
not embark upon an inquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or
otherwise of the allegations made therein, but if the Court thinks
fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and self
restraint imposed by law, and more particularly, the parameters
laid down in R.P.Kapur Vs. State of Punjab,7 and State of
Haryana & ors vs. Bhajan Lal8, the Court would exercise its
5 2023 SCC Online SC 1083
6 (2019) 11 SCC 706
7 AIR 1960 SC 866
8 (1992) Supp (1) SCC 335
Tilak
::: Uploaded on – 06/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 11/01/2025 00:09:01 :::
15/20 Wp 2079-17 J.doc
jurisdiction to quash the FIR.
16. In Bhajanlal (supra), the broad categories of cases in
which the inherent power u/s.482 could be exercised, are found
to be outlined in paragraph no. 102 of the Law Report, which
reads to the following :-
“102 In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions
of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this
Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary
power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code
which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following
categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be
exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to
secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any
precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines
or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases
wherein such power should be exercised.
(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) Where the allegations in the first information report and other
materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable
offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section
156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the
purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or
complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not
disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against
the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable
offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation
is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as
contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so
absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent
person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient
ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the
provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (under which a criminal
proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the
proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code orTilak
::: Uploaded on – 06/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 11/01/2025 00:09:01 :::
16/20 Wp 2079-17 J.docthe Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of
the aggrieved party.
(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.’
17. The aforesaid principle laid down has been carried
ahead in Iqbal @ Bala Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh,9 when once
again the parameters of quashment/ discharge/prayer for
quashment of FIR were re-looked into, and though it is reiterated
that even after the charge-sheet has been filed, the petition for
quashing of an FIR, is well within the powers of the Court,
analysing the facts placed before the Court, Their Lordships held
that although the allegations levelled in the FIR, do not inspire
any confidence, more particularly, in absence of any specific date,
time etc, the appellant should prefer discharge application under
Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, since the
investigation was over and the charge-sheet was ready to be filed
before the Competent Court as the trial Court will get an
opportunity to look into the material, which the Investigating
Officer might have collected, and then the Court will decide
whether discharge is to be granted. In paragraph no.11, the Apex
Court observed thus :-
“11 In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to
look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record
of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care
and circumspection try to read in between the lines. The Court while
exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226
of the Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but9 2023 (8) SCC 734
Tilak
::: Uploaded on – 06/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 11/01/2025 00:09:01 :::
17/20 Wp 2079-17 J.docis empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to
the initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials collected
in the course of investigation. Take for instance the case on hand.
Multiple FIRs have been registered over a period of time. It is in the
background of such circumstances the registration of multiple FIRs
assumes importance, thereby attracting the issue of wreaking
vengeance out of private or personal grudge as alleged.”
18. We indicated very specifically to Mr.Jha that upon
filing of the charge-sheet, he has a substantive alternative
statutory remedy of filing an application for discharge as
contemplated u/s.227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and
definitely while entertaining the petition under Article 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India, where the petitioner has an
alternative remedy, which without being unduly onerous would
provide to be an efficacious remedy, he is well advised to avail
such a remedy, as at this stage, on perusal of the charge-sheet,
which prima facie contain sufficient material to continue with the
prosecution of the petitioner in the three C.Rs and since it being a
trite position in law, that it is not permissible for us to hold a mini
trial, he can avail the remedy available to him. However, Mr.Jha
insisted that since mere filing of charge-sheet would not debar
this Court from examining the merits of the matter, we have
turned our attention to the material in the charge-sheet which is
placed before us.
It is the submission of Mr.Jha that filing of distinct
FIRs was not justified, and he had placed reliance upon the
decision of the Apex Court in case of T.T. Anthony (supra), which
has laid down the position of law to the effect that there can be no
Tilak
::: Uploaded on – 06/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 11/01/2025 00:09:01 :::
18/20 Wp 2079-17 J.doc
second FIR and no fresh investigation can be conducted on
receipt of every subsequent information in respect of the same
cognizable offence or same occurrence giving rise to one or more
cognizable offences.
As far as the case before us is concerned, we must
note that upon an application being filed by the co-accused, the
investigation was directed to be conducted by the Investigating
Officer of D.B. Marg police station to save the accused persons of
the harassment faced by them on account of the registration of
multiple FIRs.
In State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Cheemalapati
Ganeswara Rao & Anr (supra), the term “same transaction” is
defined, and it is held that whether a transaction can be regarded
as the same would necessarily depend upon the particular facts of
each case, as it is not possible to have a definition of the said term.
However, it is held that where there is proximity of time or place
or unity of purpose and design or continuity of action in respect
of series of acts, it may be possible to infer that they form part of
the same transaction. It is however, clarified that it is not
necessary that every one of these elements should co-exist for a
transaction to be regarded as the same, but if several acts
committed by a person show a unity of purpose or design that
would be a strong circumstance to indicate that those acts form
part of the same transaction. Thus, in the words of the Apex
Court, the connection between a series of acts, seems to us to be
Tilak
::: Uploaded on – 06/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 11/01/2025 00:09:01 :::
19/20 Wp 2079-17 J.doc
an essential ingredient for those acts to constitute the same
transaction, and therefore, the mere absence of the words, “so
connected together” as to form “in clauses (a), (c) and (d)” of
Section 239 would make little difference.
The series of acts which constitute the transaction
with one another and if some of them stand independently, they
would not form part of the same transaction but would constitute
the different transaction or transactions.
19. When we specifically perused the charge-sheets,
which has invoked the offence punishable u/s. 420 of IPC, and
the material compiled in the charge-sheet, in form of the
statements of witnesses, as well as the receipts and the cheques
issued to the complainant which were dishonored, prima facie, we
find that the petitioner was entrusted with the property in the
course of business and on being entrusted with the property and
dominion over the property, he had misappropriated the same, an
offence of criminal breach of trust, is prima facie made out.
The offence of cheating as contemplated u/s.420 as
defined in Section 415 has also its ingredients in the charge-sheet.
In addition, the accusations are levelled also under section 465,
467, 468, 472 r/w Section 34 of the IPC, and since the material
in the charge-sheet indicate that being aware that the ornaments
were given for a specific purpose, the petitioners have failed to
return the ornaments or did not make the payment of the same,
as assured within the prescribed timeline, and most importantly,
Tilak
::: Uploaded on – 06/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 11/01/2025 00:09:01 :::
20/20 Wp 2079-17 J.doc
there was an intention to deceive from the very beginning. As a
result, the cheques issued were dishonored and no steps were
taken to return the ornaments, in our opinion, the case of the
petitioner would not fall even any of the parameters set out in
para 102 of Bhajan Lal (supra).
At this stage, when Mr.Jha has invoked the principle
of prohibition on registering multiple FIRs, we do not find that
the complaint in the three FIRs arise out of the same transaction,
as the transactions are different though the modus operandi is the
same, and once the charge-sheet has been filed, on completion of
investigation, we are not inclined to get into that aspect.
We, therefore, refuse to exercise our inherent power
to quash and set aside the FIR in light of the material constituting
prima facie case against the petitioners, and while dismissing the
Writ Petitions, we keep the liberty open in the petitioners to file
appropriate proceedings seeking discharge if the law permits them
to do so.
(MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J) (BHARATI DANGRE, J.)
Tilak
::: Uploaded on – 06/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 11/01/2025 00:09:01 :::
[ad_1]
Source link