Court No. - 33
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 5216 of 2019 Petitioner :- Laeek Ahmad Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shahabuddin Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J. Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; the learned A.G.A. for the respondents 1 and 2; and perused the record.
The instant petition seeks quashing of the first information report (FIR) dated 16.12.2018 registered as Case Crime No. 1281 of 2018, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C. at P.S. Civil Lines, District Moradabad.
The impugned FIR has been lodged by Land Records Clerk working in the office of Collector, Moradabad in respect of fraudulent preparation, submission and encashment of false Bills in the financial year 2012-2013. The allegations in the impugned first information report are to the effect that in the department concerned, various forged, fabricated and fictitious bills were posted against which payment was made and the proceeds were credited to various accounts. One of the bank accounts in which the Bill amount was credited is of the petitioner (Laeek Ahmad), who, at the relevant time, was a Lekhpal in the department concerned.
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that earlier in respect of such fraudulent bill discounting and credit transfers, a first information report was lodged as Case Crime No.0232 of 2018 at the same police station in which though the petitioner was not named but during the course of investigation the police wanted to arrest the petitioner. As a result, the petitioner filed criminal misc. writ petition no.19523 of 2018 which was disposed off by order dated 23.07.2018 thereby granting protection of arrest till completion of investigation.
It is thus the case of the petitioner that the impugned first information report is a second FIR of the same offence and therefore being a second FIR, the same is not maintainable and is liable to be quashed in view of the decision of the apex court in the case of T.T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala : (2001) 6 SCC 181.
On merits, it has been submitted that when the real object of transaction in his bank account was learnt, petitioner's son had lodged a first information report disclosing that his father (Laeek Ahmad-the petitioner) was duped by Arun Kumar Bhatnagar, inasmuch as he was asked by him to provide his bank account number so that some money belonging to Arun Kumar Bhatnagar could be collected therein and later paid to said Arun Kumar.
We have carefully perused the record. Upon perusal of the record we find that in case crime no.232 of 2018, Bills relating to ACP arrears were encashed and credit transfers took place in the year 2017 whereas in the impugned FIR the fraudulent transactions are of the period 2012-2013. That apart, in the earlier first information report, the transactions in the bank account of the petitioner is not disclosed and the petitioner is not even named. Even if during the course of investigation of the earlier case, much larger embezzlement and bungling was found that does not prevent the establishment to lodge another first information report specifically disclosing transactions that constitute another offence. It may be observed that an offender can commit offence repeatedly and can be made accused repeatedly for offences repeated. In Awadesh Kumar Jha v. State of Bihar, (2016) 3 SCC 8, the apex court after considering the principle laid down in T.T. Antony's case (supra) had observed that the principle laid therein would not be applicable where the substance of the allegations in the two FIRs is different. In the instant case, as the subsequent first information report discloses a separate set of transactions constituting commission of offences, it cannot be said that the impugned FIR is a second FIR of the same offence. Hence, the judgment on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
The second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the son of the petitioner had made a complaint against Arun Kumar Bhatnagar in respect of utilizing his bank account for transfer of money is a matter of defence which cannot be accepted in writ jurisdiction to quash the first information report.
For the reasons recorded above, the petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 26.2.2019 Sunil Kr Tiwari