IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.315/2013 c/w CRIMINAL PETITION NOs. 6166/2018, 6165/2018, 6164/2018 AND 6163/2018 IN CRL.P. NO.315/2013:
BETWEEN:
1. M.S. KUMAR S/O SHANKRANNA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/O DOOR NO.2027/2 14TH CROSS, SIDDAVIRAPPA EXTN. DAVANAGERE – 577 006.
2. SMT. SHANTHALA KUMAR W/O M.S. KUMAR AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/O DOOR NO.2027/2 14TH CROSS, SIDDVIRAPPA EXTN. DAVANAGERE – 577 006.
... PETITIONERS (BY SRI. S.G. RAJENDRA REDDY., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. T.R. INDRAMMA D/O T.R. RUDRAPPA AGED 37 YEARS R/O RAMANJANEYA NILAYA VIJAYANAGAR EXTENSION KONDAJJI ROAD DAVANAGERE – 577 006.
2. STATE BY K.T.J. NAGAR POLICE STATION DAVANAGERE REPT. BY S.P.P.
HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. N. SHANKARANARAYANA BHAT., ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SRI. S. RACHAIAH., HCGP FOR R-2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT FILED U/S 200 OF CR.P.C. BY RESPONDENT NO.1 BEFORE THE JMFC-II, DAVANAGERE IN PCR NO.355/12 AND REFERRING THE SAME UNDER SEC. 156(3) OF CR.P.C. TO THE RESPONDENT POLICE FOR INVESTIGATION AND REGISTRATION OF CASE IN CRIME NO.118/12 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT POLICE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 406, 409, 415, 416 AND 420 OF IPC.
IN CRL.P. NO.6166/2018: BETWEEN:
1. KRISHNAPRASAD VENKATRAO PERAMBUDE S/O VENKATRAMAN AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS VYASTHAVAPAKA NIRDESHAKARU CHENNAI – 603 103 TAMIL NADU 2. SUMANA W/O KRISHNAPRASAD VENKATRAO PERMABUDE NIRDESHAKARU THIRUPURA CHITS CHENNAI – 603 103 TAMIL NADU.
ALSO BOTH R/AT A2-07 PANACHE ELEGANT VILLA NAVALUR VILLAGE CHENGALPATTU KANCHIPURAM TAMIL NADU – 603 103.
PRESENTLY BOTH PETITIONERS IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY IN BANGALORE CENTRAL JAIL.
(BY MRS. SHRUTHI ON BEHALF OF SRI. SHEKHAR BADIGER., ADVOCATE) ... PETITIONERS AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY E & N CRIME P.S., MANGALORE CITY REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE – 560 001.
2. ARAFATH AMIN S/O K.M. NOORULLAH NO.66, NEAR MANGALADEVI TEMPLE, MANGALURU CITY - 575 001, KARNATAKA.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S. RACHAIAH., HCGP FOR R-1;
R-2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CRIME NO.15/2018, REGISTERED BY THE E & N POLICE STATION, MANGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 406, 417 AND 420 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND C.J.M., MANGALURU CITY.
IN CRL.P. NO.6165/2018: BETWEEN:
1. KRISHNAPRASAD VENKATRAO PERAMBUDE S/O VENKATRAMAN AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS MANAGING DIRECTOR THIRIPURA CHITS PVT. LTD. BANGALORE CITY – 560 003 KARNATAKA.
2. SUMANA W/O KRISHNAPRASAD VENKATRAO PERAMBUDE AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS DIRECOTR, THIRIPURA CHITS PVT. LTD. BANGALORE CITY – 560 003 KARNATAKA.
ALSO BOTH R/A A2-07 PANACHE ELEGANT VILLA NAVALUR VILLAGE CHENGALPATTU KANCHIPURAM TAMILNADU – 603 103.
PRESENTLY BOTH PETITIONERS IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY IN BANGALORE CENTRAL JAIL.
(BY MRS. SHRUTHI ON BEHALF OF SRI. SHEKHAR BADIGER., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY JAYANAGAR P.S. REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ... PETITIONERS HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE – 560 001.
2. RAVIRAJ NARAYAN NAYAK S/O NARAYAN M NAIK NO.303, SIRI EMBASSY 30 AND 31 SITE NUMBER VITTALNAGAR BANGALORE – 560 078 KARNATAKA.
(BY SRI. S. RACHAIAH., HCGP FOR R-1; R-2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) ... RESPONDENTS THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CRIME NO.162/2018, REGISTERED BY THE JAYANAGAR POLICE STATION, BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 420 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 76 OF THE CHIT FUNDS ACT PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU.
IN CRL.P. NO.6164/2018: BETWEEN:
1. SHRIKRISHNAPRASAD VENKATRAO PERAMBUDE S/O VENKATRAMAN AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS MANAGING DIRECTOR THIRIPURA CHITS PVT. LTD., BANGALORE CITY – 560 003 KARNATAKA.
2. SMT. SUMANA W/O KRISHNAPRASAD VENKATRAO PERAMBUDE AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS DIRECTOR, THIRIPURA CHITS PVT LTD., BANGALORE CITY – 560 003 KARNATAKA. ALSO BOTH R/AT A2-07, PANACHE ELEGANT VILLA NAVALUR VILLAGE, CHENGALPATTU KANCHIPURAM, TAMIL NADU - 603 103.
PRESENTLY BOTH PETITIONER IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY IN BANGALORE CENTRAL JAIL.
(BY MRS. SHRUTHI ON BEHALF OF SRI. SHEKHAR BADIGER., ADVOCATE) ... PETITIONERS AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BAGALAGUNTE P.S. REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE – 560 001.
2. DEVESH KUMAR S/O PURNA PRAKASH AGE 38 YEARS NO.1A, GROUND FLOOR KHATA NO.85, VIKAS NAGAR TUMKUR ROAD BANGALORE CITY – 560 076 KARNATAKA.
(BY SRI. S. RACHAIAH., HCGP FOR R-1; R-2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) ... RESPONDENTS THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CRIME NO.138/2018, REGISTERED BY THE BAGALAGUNTE POLICE STATION, BANGALORE CITY FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 420 OF IPC AND UNDER SECTION 76 OF THE CHIT FUNDS ACT, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE XLV A.C.M.M., AT BANGALORE.
IN CRL.P. NO.6163/2018: BETWEEN:
1. KRISHNAPRASAD VENKATRAO PERAMBUDE S/O VENKATRAMAN AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS MANAGING DIRECTOR THIRIPURA CHITS PVT. LTD. BANGALORE CITY – 560 003 KARNATAKA.
2. SUMANA W/O KRISHNAPRASAD VENKATRAO PERAMBUDE AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS DIRECOTR, THIRIPURA CHITS PVT. LTD. BANGALORE CITY – 560 003 KARNATAKA.
ALSO BOTH R/A:(PRESENTLY) A2-07 PANACHE ELEGANT VILLA NAVALUR VILLAGE CHENGALPATTU, KANCHIPURAM TAMILNADU – 603 103.
PRESENTLY BOTH PETITIONERS IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY IN BANGALORE CENTRAL JAIL.
(BY MRS. SHRUTHI ON BEHALF OF SRI. SHEKHAR BADIGER., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MALLESHWARAM P.S. REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING ... PETITIONERS BANGALORE – 560 001.
2. MAHALAKSHMI G BHAT W/O NOT KNOWN AGE 38 YEARS NO.2421, 10TH MAIN E BLOCK, 2ND STAGE RAJAJI NAGAR BANGALORE – 560 010.
(BY SRI. S. RACHAIAH., HCGP FOR R-1;
... RESPONDENTS SRI. A.S. MOHANA KRISHNAN MUDALIAR., ADVOCATE FOR R-2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CRIME NO.82/2018 REGISTERED BY THE MALLESHWARAM POLICE STATION, BANGALORE CITY FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 408, 420, 120B R/W 34 OF IPC AND UNDER SECTION 76 OF THE CHIT FUNDS ACT, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE IV A.C.M.M., AT BANGALORE.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R In these matters petitioners, who have been arraigned as accused in Crime Nos.118/2012, 15/2018, 162/2018, 138/2018 and 82/2018, are seeking for quashing of proceedings registered by different police stations for the offences punishable under Section 76 of Chit Funds Act, 1982 and Sections 406, 408, 409, 415, 416, 417, 420, 120B r/w Section 34 of IPC contending interalia that repetitive FIRs cannot be filed against them that too in respect of same offences and only with an intention to cause utmost inconvenience to the petitioners and to coerce them to come to an agreement with complainant, respective FIRs have been filed. It is contended that same is contrary to law laid down by this Court and catena of judgments including the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of matter of T.T.ANTONY vs. STATE OF KERALA reported in (2001) 6 SCC 181.
Hence, they have prayed for quashing of the proceedings.
2. It is also contended by way of an alternate contention that investigation can be done atleast by one agency, which would also be in consonance with the Circular bearing No.L&O/MISC/24/2015-16 dated 30.07.2015-Annexure-G whereunder Director General and Inspector General of Police has directed investigating officer not to register more than one FIR pertaining to same transaction and as such it is prayed that as per the Circular dated 30.07.2015 the investigation relating to different FIRs registered by different police stations be investigated by one agency so as to cause least inconvenience not only to petitioners but also to the witnesses who would be tendering their statements.
3. I have heard the arguments of Sri.S.G.Rajendra Reddy and Smt. Shruthi, learned counsel appearing for petitioners and Sri. S.Rachaiah, learned HCGP appearing for respondent-State and Sri.N.Shankarnarayana Bhat, learned counsel appearing for first respondent-complainant in Crl.P.No.315/2013 and second respondent- complainants in other petitions are served and they are unrepresented.
4. It is the contention of Smt. Shruthi, learned counsel appearing for petitioners that registration of separate FIR’s in respect of same/ connected cognizable offence is impermissible in law particularly when first FIR has already been registered in respect of same offences. She would contend that registration of same has resulted in harassment of accused persons and subjecting them to perennial arrests or continuous arrests and thereby resulting in unlawful detention of accused persons under the guise of separate FIRs having been registered against them. She would elaborate her submission by contending that such registration of repetitive and successive FIRs relating to same offence would be an abuse of statutory power and as such this Court in exercise of power vested under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should interfere and quash the proceedings as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter T.T.ANTONY vs. STATE OF KERALA reported in (2001) 6 SCC 181.
5. Elaborating her submission she would contend that registering of successive FIRs amounts to violation of Article 21 of Constitution of India and for the said proposition she relies upon the judgment of Apex Court in the matter of AMITBHAI ANILCHANDRA SHAH vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND ANOTHER reported in (2013) 6 SCC 348. She would further contend that successive information/complaints received by different police stations in respect of same cognizable offence ought to be treated as a statement made by a witness under Section 161 or Section 162 of Cr.P.C. by receiving the same at the earliest of receiving of FIR and no further first information report is required to be registered when the incidents or the commonness being there in the alleged cognizable offences. Hence, she prays for quashing of proceedings registered in subsequent FIRs i.e., present FIRs by contending that first of FIR in Crime No.20/2018 has been registered by Chandra Layout Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 420 Cr.P.C. and Sections 3, 4, 5 of the Act, which is being investigated and subsequent complaints can be treated as statements of the witnesses. Hence, she prays for same being quashed by allowing the petitions.
6. Sri. S.G.Rajendra Reddy, learned counsel appearing for petitioner in Crl.P.No.315/2013 in addition to contentions raised with regard to repetitive FIRs has also contended that order of taking cognizance by learned Magistrate by order dated 24.07.2012 is without judicious application of mind and order itself does not disclose as to the material which had persuaded the learned Magistrate to take cognizance and as such he prays for quashing of said order and consequently proceedings in PCR No.355/2012 pending on the file of JMFC-II, Davanagere against petitioners being quashed.
7. Per contra, Sri.S.Rachaiah, learned HCGP appearing for respondent-State and Sri.Shankarnarayana Bhat, learned counsel appearing for complainant in Crl.P.No.31/2013 would support the registration of subsequent FIRs contending interalia that offences are distinct and separate based on independent and separate cause of action and as such there is no infirmity in such registration and as such they have prayed for dismissal of the petitions.
8. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for parties and on perusal of records this Court is of the considered view that question, which would arise for consideration are:
(i) Whether multiple FIRs filed against petitioners are liable to be quashed on the ground that same is impermissible?
(ii) Whether petitioner in Crl.P.No.315/2013 is entitled to succeed on the ground of cognizance taken being erroneous?
RE. POINT NO.1:
9. Petitioners herein are the Managing Directors, Directors and Officers of a chit funds companies having its office at Chennai, Tamil Nadu running under the name and style of “Lux India Company” and “Thiripura Chits Pvt. Ltd.” and its operation is spread over various States including the State of Karnataka and having different branches and was said to be having 18 branches and collection points employing over 3000 persons with its regional office at Malleshwaram, Bangalore. On account of amounts paid by the depositors, account holders and the like, having not been repaid, several complaints came to be lodged in different police stations by different depositors/account holders alleging that companies, its directors and officers have cheated the respective complainants in order to make illegal gain. Said complaints which were lodged across the State in different police stations resulted in First Information Reports being registered against the petitioners herein for the offences punishable under Sections 420 r/w Sections 3, 4 and 5 of Prize chits and Money Circulations Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’ for short).
10. In the matter of T.T.ANTONY vs. STATE OF KERALA reported in (2001) 6 SCC 181 Hon’ble Apex Court has held that a second FIR in respect of an offence or different offences committed in the course of same transaction, is not only impermissible but it violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It has been further held that registration of second FIR is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In conclusion Hon’ble Apex Court has held:
“26. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426] after exhaustive consideration of the decisions of this Court in State of W.B. v. Swapan Kumar Guha [(1982) 1 SCC 561 : 1982 SCC (Cri) 283] , S.N.
Sharma v. Bipen Kumar Tiwari [(1970) 1 SCC 653 : 1970 SCC (Cri) 258] , R.P.
Kapur v. State of Punjab [AIR 1960 SC 866 : (1960) 3 SCR 388 : 1960 Cri LJ 1239] , Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani [(1978) 2 SCC 424 : 1978 SCC (Cri) 236] and Prabhu Dayal Deorah v. District Magistrate, Kamrup [(1974) 1 SCC 103 : 1974 SCC (Cri) 18] , approving the judgment of the Privy Council in Khwaja Nazir Ahmad case [AIR 1945 PC 18 : 46 Cri LJ 413] it was concluded in para 102 as follows: (SCC pp. 378-79) “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 or the Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides 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.
The above list, as noted, is illustrative and not exhaustive.
27. A just balance between the fundamental rights of the citizens under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution and the expansive power of the police to investigate a cognizable offence has to be struck by the court. There cannot be any controversy that sub-section (8) of Section 173 CrPC empowers the police to make further investigation, obtain further evidence (both oral and documentary) and forward a further report or reports to the Magistrate. In Narang case [(1979) 2 SCC 322 : 1979 SCC (Cri) 479] it was, however, observed that it would be appropriate to conduct further investigation with the permission of the court. However, the sweeping power of investigation does not warrant subjecting a citizen each time to fresh investigation by the police in respect of the same incident, giving rise to one or more cognizable offences, consequent upon filing of successive FIRs whether before or after filing the final report under Section 173(2) CrPC. It would clearly be beyond the purview of Sections 154 and 156 CrPC, nay, a case of abuse of the statutory power of investigation in a given case. In our view a case of fresh investigation based on the second or successive FIRs, not being a counter- case, filed in connection with the same or connected cognizable offence alleged to have been committed in the course of the same transaction and in respect of which pursuant to the first FIR either investigation is under way or final report under Section 173(2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate, may be a fit case for exercise of power under Section 482 CrPC or under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution.”
11. If several persons conspires to commit offences and have committed overt-acts in pursuance of conspiracy and these acts are committed in the course of same transactions, then it would amount or be construed as one act. If there is one single conspiracy though spread over different period, it would be construed as one single conspiracy or in other words, it is only one object of the conspiracy.
12. Hon’ble Apex Court in T.T.ANTONY’s case has taken a view that there is a bar to register a second FIR by reading into provisions of code of criminal procedure. It is further held that whenever second or subsequent information relating to same cognizable offence or same occurrence or same incident giving raise to one or more cognizable offences, would be a bar to registration of second FIR. Thus, it could be seen from the judgment of Apex Court in T.T.ANTONY’s case the thrust has been on commonality and sameness and the truth and substance of gravaman of charges.
13. In the matter of NARINDERJIT SINGH SAHNI AND ANR. V. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. reported in (2002) 2 SCC 210 thrust of the arguments of the learned Advocates appearing for accused persons thereunder was to the effect that petitioners were Managing Director/Director/Employee/Manager/ Executive Officer and the Company, which had accepted the deposits from large number of persons, had failed to repay the same despite requests made by depositors and in some of the cases cheques issued by them had been returned and consequently criminal cases were registered against the petitioners therein as the principal accused in 8 cases for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 409 and 120B of IPC by various police stations and more than 19 FIRs were pending in different stations for similar cognizable offences having been committed by the accused persons. That apart, 182 complaints under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, were also pending against the Managing Director in different Courts.
14. It is in this background, Hon’ble Apex Court while examining the expression “personal liberty” occurring in Article 21 of the Constitution of India held that said expression is of the widest possible amplitude and cannot in any way whatsoever be curbed or restricted without offending the constitutional mandate. It was further held that writ petitioners claim that issue of a single offence is to be not accepted since each individual deposit agreement shall have to be treated as a separate and individual transaction. It came to be held:
“60. As regards the issue of a single offence, we are afraid that the fact situation of the matters under consideration would not permit to lend any credence to such a submission. Each individual deposit agreement shall have to be treated as a separate and individual transaction brought about by the allurement of the financial companies, since the parties are different, the amount of deposit is different as also the period for which the deposit was effected. It has all the characteristics of independent transactions and we do not see any compelling reason to hold it otherwise. The plea as raised also cannot have our concurrence.”
15. In the matter of BAHUBHAI vs. STATE OF GUJARAT in Crl.A.No.1599/2010 which came to be disposed of on 26.08.2010 Hon’ble Apex Court has held that while examining the prayer for quashing of successive or repetitive FIRs is sought for, it will have to be examined as to whether both the FIRs relates to same incident in respect of same occurrence or it is in regard to the incidents, which are two or more parts of the same transaction. If the answer is in the affirmative, second FIR is liable to be quashed. However, in case, contrary is proved namely, where version in the second FIR is different and they are in respect of the two different incidents/crimes, second FIR would be maintainable.
16. The Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the matter of JAKIR HUSSAIN KOSANGI AND OTHERS vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH has held to the following effect:
“61. It appears that the contentions, same as those raised before us by the petitioners, found favour with a learned Judge of the Madras High Court in Viswapriya (India) Ltd. v. Government of Tamilnadu (2015 3 MLJ (Crl) 385). In that case two companies against which criminal complaints were registered for offences under the IPC as well as under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1997 filed Writ Petitions challenging the registration of complaints as without jurisdiction. The challenge was on several grounds namely (1) that the Deputy Superintendent of Police of the Economic Offences Wing of the police had no power to investigate offences under the special enactment; (2) that the police have no power to investigate offences relating to incorporated companies; and (3) that it is only the Competent Authority under the special enactment who will be entitled to investigate into such offences. But all these contentions were negatived by the learned judge of the Madras High Court. The last contention was that there cannot be multiple FIRs. This contention was raised on the strength of the decision of the Supreme Court in T.T. Antony. This contention was accepted by the learned Judge of the Madras High Court and a direction was issued to the police not to register any fresh FIRs but to treat all further complaints as statements under Section 161 of the code.
62. Interestingly, the complaints against both the companies in the case before the Madras High Court was also that both these companies collected deposits from the public and failed to repay them and that several depositors filed complaints all over the country.”
17. Thus, it boils down the concept of sameness, which expression has to be given a restricted meaning and it does not encompass filing a counter FIR relating to same and connected cognizable offence. Registration of successive or repetitive FIRs when registered, would result in mandate of Article 21 of Constitution being violated will have to be examined as to whether there is any prohibition in any further complaint by the same complainant can be allowed to be registered as a second FIR and that too against the same accused, particularly when an FIR has already been registered in that regard and investigation would have commenced and any improvement in the statement of complainant or its witnesses to the original complainant would not arise for registration of successive FIRs or second FIR. At the same time it has to be noticed that writ Courts would not issue writ of mandamus directing the Station House Officer of a police station within whose jurisdiction an incident is said to have occurred, not to register any FIR, inasmuch as, it would tantamount to putting fetter or restrictions on the investigating authority or in other words, right of the victim being snatched.
18. It is in this background, FIRs registered against the petitioners in all these cases will have to be examined. If there is a commonality or if the second FIR is off shoot of first FIR, registration of second FIR would not be called for. In this background, as already noticed hereinabove the FIRs registered against petitioners are perused, contention raised by Smt.Shruthi, learned counsel appearing for petitioner will fall to the ground. It is clear from several complaints lodged against petitioners that they (respective complainants) have deposited money in the chit fund company, which was promoted by the petitioners under different schemes or same scheme in different places across the State. On account of non repayment of amounts either on its completion or when refund was sought for, it has given them separate/distinct/independent cause of action to lodge file respective complaints. As such jurisdictional Station House Officers on receipt of said complaints have registered the respective first information report against accused persons. It would be too hard for this Court to call upon the complainants to appear before the authority, which has registered first FIR to treat successive complaints as further statements of the complainants as they are residing in different parts of the State and as such a person who has deposited small amount in the fond hope of getting good returns, cannot be expected to expend money more than his deposit towards for travel and incur other expenditure for tendering evidence to drive home the guilt of the accused namely, by attending the Court in a different district though the cause of action for the said complaint being distinct and separate by treating his complaint as a part of the cause of action of first complaint. Thus, in the instant complaint it cannot be inferred that there is any commonality in respect of distinct transaction which has given raise to distinct cause of action. As such filing of different FIRs or registration of successive FIRs by different police stations would not be permissible and accordingly, Point No.1 formulated hereinabove is answered in the negative namely, FIRs cannot be quashed.
19. However, Smt. Shruthi, learned counsel appearing for petitioners would be justified in contending that in order to avoid inconvenience being caused to petitioners namely, accused persons to appear before different investigating authorities either at different times or at the same time, a single agency may be directed to investigate into the offence is an argument which calls for acceptance for the simple reason that in respect of these repetitive FIRs registered at different police stations there may be different offences and investigation by more than 2 police stations at the same time and on account of absence of accused before one police station as a result of accused being engaged in the course of investigation by a different police station, there is likelihood of investigating officer before whom the petitioner was not able to appear genuinely may take steps to seek for cancellation of bail or such other coercive steps. In such circumstances, fault cannot be laid at the doors of accused/petitioners. It is in this background, it would be apt and appropriate to reserve liberty to the petitioners to submit a comprehensive representation to the Director General and Inspector General of Police, Government of Karnataka, for a single investigating agency to take up the investigation of these offences as it relates to one company, same accused, but different complainants so as to avoid inconvenience being caused to either respective complainants or accused. It is needless to state in the event of such representation being made jurisdictional Director General and Inspector General of Police shall consider the same on merits keeping in mind the Circular bearing No.L&O/Misc/24/2015-16 dated 30.07.2015 (Annexure-G).
RE.POINT NO.2:
20. Insofar as Crl.P.No.315/2013 is concerned, it would not detain this Court for too long to accept the contention of Sri.S.G.Rajendra Reddy, inasmuch as, impugned order is as vague, vagueness could be. A plain reading of the order does not disclose for which offence cognizance has been taken. This itself would indicate that there is non application of judicious mind by the learned Magistrate and as such, order taking cognizance against present petitioners in PCR No.355/2012 (Cr.No.118/2010) dated 25.07.2007 is liable to be set aside and matter requires to be remitted back to the jurisdictional trial Court for fresh consideration.
For the reasons aforestated, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER (i) Crl.P.No.315/2013 is allowed and order dated 24.07.2012 passed in PCR No.355/2012 (Cr.No.118/2012) pending on the file of JMFC-II, Davanagere, is hereby set aside and matter is remitted back to the jurisdictional Magistrate for passing orders afresh keeping in mind observations made hereinabove.
(ii) Criminal Petition Nos.6166/2018, 6165/2018, 6164/2018 and 6163/2018 are hereby dismissed.
(iii) Petitioners in Crl.P.Nos.6166/2018, 6165/2018, 6164/2018 and 6163/2018 are at liberty to submit representation to the Director General and Inspector General of Police, Government of Karnataka, for the investigation being taken up by one single agency and it is needless to state that in the event of such representation being filed the jurisdictional authority shall consider the same expeditiously keeping in mind observations made hereinabove within an outer limit of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of said representation.
SD/- JUDGE DR