Criminal Misc. No. M-9485 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-9485 of 2009 Date of decision:- 12.7.2011 Rakesh Saini and another ...Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. Sidharth Batra, Advocaate for the petitioners. Mr. P.S. Virk, DAG Haryana for respondent No.1-State. Mr. J.S. Bedi, Advocate for respondent No.2. RITU BAHRI J. Petitioners have sought quashing of second successive FIR bearing No.259 dated 21.7.2008 under Sections 420,467,468,471 and 506 IPC registered at Police Station Mujessar,District Faridabad. As per contents of the FIR on 24.3.2008 an agreement to sell was entered into with Virender Saini and Rakesh Saini regarding total area measuring 29 Kanals 11 Marlas situated at Village Sarurpur, District Faridabad by telling that agreement to sell dated 10.3.2008 had already been entered of this very land with their owner Sohan Saini and Pampi Saini son of Har Kaur daughter of Taufa, resident of Village Kakod, Secundrabad (UP). Photostat copy of the agreement dated 10.3.2008 was given to the complainant by Virender Saini, Rakesh Saini and Jarnail Singh, property dealer. They were informed that the title of the land was clear from all encumbrances. The complainant agreed to purchase the Criminal Misc. No. M-9485 of 2009 -2- aforesaid land and according to the agreement total consideration of Rs.1,75,00,000/- was settled. Accused Virender Saini and Rakesh Saini asked the complainant to get the sale deed entered on 08.5.2008. On this day the sale deed was got registered in the name of Anju wife of complainant. At the time when the complainant visited the spot the original owners Sohan Saini and Pampi Saini informed them that they have not entered into any agreement with Virender Saini and Rakesh Saini for sale of their land measuring 29 Kanals 11 Marlas. The allegation is that the accused in connivance, intentionally and with an ulterior motive cheated the complainant into agreement to sell and get the sale deed registered and took the amount of Rs.1,75,00,000/- by cheating. In the above background the FIR was registered. From the contents of the FIR it is clear that the land measuring 29 Kanal 11 Marlas owned by Sohan Saini and Pampi Saini has been sold to the respondent Smt. Anju Aggarwal wife of complainant Surinder Aggarwal vide sale deed 24.3.2008. The original owners Pampi Saini and Sohan Saini have registered an FIR No.254 dated 26.6.2008 under Sections 420,467,468,471 and 120-B IPC, at Police Station Ballabgarh City, District Faridabad qua the same transaction dated 08.5.2008 against Anju Aggarwal wife of Surinder Aggarwal and two other unknown persons. Copy of the second FIR is Annexure P-2. As per contents of FIR No.254 dated 26.6.2008 applicants Pawan Kumar and Sonu Saini son of Shri Naubat Singh are residents of Maliyan Kakod, Tehsil Secunderabad (UP) alleged that the land measuring 29 Kanal 5 Marlas was in the name of their mother Smt. Har Kaur. This was agricultural land in Mauja Sarurpur, Tehsil Ballabgarh, District Faridabad. She had inherited this land from her father. After their mother expired, this land was given to their maternal uncle Ami Chand and Khacheru to look after. They were informed one month back by their Mama (maternal uncle) that they have sold the land. Since they Criminal Misc. No. M-9485 of 2009 -3- had not entered into any agreement. They went to the office of Patwari and Tehsildar in Ballabgarh office and came to know that some persons in connivance with each other fradulently got the mutation and inheritance registered on 30.4.2008, got it approved from Tehsildar, Ballabgarh. After this two persons posing themselves as heirs of their mother entered into a false agreement with Smt. Anju Aggarwal wife of Surinder Aggarwal son of Duli Chand resident of 2702, Sector 7-A, Faridabad and got the sale deed registered from the office of Tehsildar, Ballabgarh on 08.5.2008. The sale deed dated 08.5.2008 neither bears signatures or thumb impressions of the complainants Pawan Kumar and Sonu Saini. Neither their photographs have been pasted on the sale deed. Two unknown persons in connivance with the witnesses, deed writer and purchaser and some other persons fradulently sold the land worth rupees three crores. Mr. Sidharth Batra, counsel for the petitioner has argued that the second FIR relates to the same incident of agreement to sell dated 08.5.2008. It has been registered after the first FIR was registered on 26.6.2008, to save their skin. The complainant in the second FIR is an accused in the first FIR, in which final report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. has been forwarded to the Magistrate. No document or proof thereof has been produced by the complainant that the petitioner has received a huge amount of Rs.1,75,00,000/-. The second FIR, thus, an after thought to involve the petitioner falsely. The registration of the second FIR on the same cause of action is not permissible in the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. As per Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Magistrate can order further investigation and on new facts, a supplementary challan could have been presented by the police in the Court. The police by registering a second successive FIR had acted illegally at the behest of the complainant. Regarding statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. or making appropriate application for further investigation as contemplated under Criminal Misc. No. M-9485 of 2009 -4- Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. it has gone ahead to register a second FIR. Mr. Sidharth Batra, counsel has placed reliance on T.T. Antony versus State of Kerala 2001(3) RCR (Criminal) 436 and has argued that the Supreme Court has observed that once FIR has been registered then 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 offence no second FIR can be registered. If on investigation of an FIR the officer in-charge of police station discovers connected offences having been committed in the course of the same transaction or the same occurrence he can file one or more reports as provided in Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the reply, Mr. P.S. Virk, DAG Haryana argues that in FIR No.259 dated 21.7.2008, the challan has been submitted on 24.12.2008 and now the matter is fixed for 30.3.2011 for arguments on framing of charge. It has been alleged in the FIR that Virender Saini and Rakesh Saini entered into an agreement with the compainant on 24.3.2008 projecting that they were the owners of the land measuring 29 Kanals and 11 Marlas vide sale deed dated 10.3.2008 and copy of the agreement was given to the complainant by the property dealer Jarnail Singh. The sale deed was executed on 08.5.2008 for a consideration of Rs.1,75,00,000/-. The complainant has stated that he has cancelled the above sale deed but a sum of Rs.1,75,00,000/- have been cheated. The cases have been registered in different police stations on the complaint of different persons. The ratio of the Supreme Court judgment in T.T. Antony versus State of Kerala (supra) is not applicable to this case. Mr. J.S. Bedi, counsel for respondent No.2 has referred to the agreement to sell (Annexure R2/1) dated 10.3.2008, which was alleged to have been executed by Sohan Saini and Pammi Saini on one side in favour of petitioners Virender Saini and Rakesh Saini. The complainant on the strength of above mentioned agreement executed another agreement to sell with the Criminal Misc. No. M-9485 of 2009 -5- petitioners in favour of Surender Aggarwal, the present complainant, on 24.3.2008, on the basis of above forged agreement to sell, the sale deed was executed between Anju wife of complainant, two persons namely Sohan Saini and Pammi Saini. In the first case i.e. FIR No.254 dated 26.6.2008 forgery with respect to the same mutation of inheritance and also the sale deed dated 08.5.2008. In the second FIR No.259 dated 21.7.2008 under Sections 420,467,468,471 and 506 IPC, registered at Police Station Mujessar, District Faridabad, the dispute pertains to two agreements to sell dated 10.3.2008 and 24.3.2008. Therefore, this course of investigation and decision in the trial relates to separate agreements, which are dated 10.3.2008 and 24.3.2008 in FIR No.259 and in respect of the sale deed dated 08.5.2008 which is subject matter of FIR No.254 dated 26.6.2008. The ratio of judgment T.T. Antony versus State of Kerala (supra) is not applicable in the facts of the present case. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully. The Supreme Court in T.T. Antony versus State of Kerala (supra) has discussed the recording of First Information Report as contemplated in the Code of Criminal Procedure. In paragraphs 20 and 21 of the judgment, the Supreme Court has observed as under :- “20. The scheme of the Cr.P.C. is that an officer in charge of a Police Station has to commence investigation as provided in Section 156 or 157 of Cr.P.C. on the basis of entry of the First Information Report, on coming to know of the commission of a cognizable offence. On completion of investigation and on the basis of evidence collected he has to form opinion under Section 169 or 170 of Cr.P.C., as the case may be, and forward his report to the concerned Magistrate under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. However, even after filing such a report if he comes into possession of further information or material, he need not register a fresh Criminal Misc. No. M-9485 of 2009 -6- FIR, he is empowered to make further investigation, normally with the leave of the court, and where during further investigation he collects further evidence, oral or documentary, he is obliged to forward the same with one or more further reports; this is the import of sub-section (8) of Section 173 Cr.P.C. 21. From the above discussion it follows that under the scheme of the provisions of Sections 154, 155,156,157,162,170 and 173 of Cr.P.C. only the earliest or the first information in regard to the commission of a cognizable offence satisfies the requirements of Section 154 Cr.P.C. Thus, 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 offence. On receipt of information about a cognizable offence or an incident giving rise to a cognizable offence or offences and on entering the F.I.R. in the station house diary, the officer in charge of a Police Station has to investigate nor merely the cognizable offence reported in the FIR but also other connected offences found to have been committed in the course of the same transaction or the same occurrence and file one or more reports as provided in Section 173 of the Cr.P.C.” From the observation of the Supreme Court,one thing is clear that the investigation agency if comes to the conclusion that there are other connected offences in the course of the same transaction or same occurrence it can file one or more reports. In the facts of the present case after going through the second FIR No.259 it transpires that the complainant had been cheated by production of agreements dated 10.3.2008 and 24.3.2008. The complainant in the present FIR No.259 is an accused in the first FIR No.254, which relates to registration of a sale deed dated 08.5.2008. The earlier agreements dated 10.3.2008 and 24.3.2008 were not subject matter of the earlier first FIR No.254. Criminal Misc. No. M-9485 of 2009 -7- They formed the cause of action for investigation in the second FIR No.259. The Supreme Court in recent judgment Babubhai versus State of Gujarat and others 2010(4) RCR (Criminal) 311 has examined the scope of registration of two FIRs in respect of the same occurrence. In Rameshchandra Nandlal Parikh v. State of Gujarat & another 2006(1) RCR (Criminal)675: 2006(1) Apex Criminal 224: (2006)1 SCC 732, this Court reconsidered the earlier judgment including T.T. Antony (supra) and held that in case the FIRs are not in respect of the same cognizable offence or the same occurrence giving rise to one or more cognizable offence nor are they alleged to have been committed in the course of the same transaction or the same occurrence as the one alleged in the first FIR, there is no prohibition in accepting the second FIR. In Nirmal Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab & others 2009(1) RCR (Criminal) 3: 2008(6) R.A.J. 555 : (2009) 1 SCC 441, this Court considered a case where an FIR had already been lodged on 14.6.2002 in respect of the offences committed by individuals. Subsequently, the matter was handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which during investigation collected huge amount of material and also recorded statements of large number of persons and the CBI came to the conclusion that a scam was involved in the selection process of Panchayat Secretaries. The second FIR was lodged by the CBI. This Court after appreciating the evidence, came to the conclusion that matter investigated by the CBI dealt with a larger conspiracy. Therefore, this investigation has been on a much wider canvass and held that second FIR was permissible and required to be investigated. The Court held as under:- “The second FIR, in our opinion, would be maintainable not only because there were different versions but when new discovery is made on factual foundations. Discoveries may be made by the police authorities at a subsequent stage. Discovery about a larger conspiracy can also surface in Criminal Misc. No. M-9485 of 2009 -8- another proceeding, as for example, in a case of this nature. If the police authorities did not make a fair investigation and left out conspiracy aspect of the matter from the purview of its investigation, in our opinion, as and when the same surfaced, it was open to the State and/or the High Court to direct investigation in respect of an offence which is distinct and separate from the one for which the FIR had already been lodged.” The sale agreements dated 10.3.2008 and 24.3.2008 are the subject matter of investigation in the present second FIR No.259 dated 21.7.2008. In view of the law laid down in Babubhai v. State of Gujarat & others (supra) there are no grounds to quash the FIR bearing No.259 dated 21.7.2008 under Sections 420,467,468,471 and 506 IPC registered at Police Station Mujessar,District Faridabad. The criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed. 12.7.2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE