HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.4608 of 2​008 ORDER:- This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short Cr.P.C) for quashing the investigation/proceedings in Crime No.122 of 2007 of Mangalhat Police Station, Hyderabad. The four petitioners herein are shown as A1 to A4 in the said case. At the admission stage i.e., on 26.07.2008 this Court ordered notice to the second respondent i.e. de facto complainant and she entered appearance through one Sri V.V. Kishan, Advocate. At the time of hearing the said learned counsel was absent though sufficient opportunity was given. Consequently the petitioners counsel was heard and the matter is taken up for orders. 2. To appreciate the point raised by the petitioners, the following circumstances which led to the filing of the complaint registered as Crime No.122 of 2007 and this petition should be noted. The first petitioner is the son of petitioners 2 and 3 while the fourth petitioner is an uncle of the first petitioner. The second respondent herein is the wife of the first petitioner and their marriage took place on 04.05.2005 at Hyderabad. Previously the second respondent filed a private complaint in the Court of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Hyderabad (for short XIII-CMM) against petitioners 1 to 3 herein and four others viz., A4 to A7 therein alleging offences punishable under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (for short DP Act) read with Section 34 IPC. That Court referred that complaint to Women Police Station, Central Crime Station, Hyderabad and it was registered there as Crime No.336 of 2006 for the aforesaid offences and investigation has been taken up. 3. Subsequently the second respondent herein filed another private complaint dated 08.05.2007 in the Court of I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad (for short I-CMM) this time against the four petitioners herein alleging against them offences punishable under Sections 420 and 406 IPC read with 34 IPC. The I CMM referred this complaint to Mangalhat Police Station and the said police registered it as Crime No.122 of 2007 and took up investigation. 4. The contention of the petitioners which is reiterated by their counsel is that the allegations made against them regarding the offences under Sections 420 and 406 IPC are already covered by the complaint registered as Crime No.336 of 2006 of Women Police Station, Central Crime Station, Hyderabad and therefore the present new complaint which has been referred to Mangalhat Police Station is nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court. They also pleaded that the police without verifying the matter in the previous case have hastily registered the present complaint as a new police case which they ought not to have done and that they could have investigated the allegations/offences made in the new complaint in the previous case as all the offences, even if true, can be said to have been committed in the course of same transaction, and therefore the proceedings in Crime No.122 of 2007 should be quashed. 5. It may be noted that the first complaint registered as Crime No.336 of 2006 relates to offences under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the DP Act. It is clear from the averments made in the complaint in the first case that about two months after the marriage the relations got strained between the first petitioner and his wife i.e. the second respondent and ultimately at her instance the said first case was registered. 6. The relevant para in the first complaint sets out the date of the marriage of the first petitioner with the second respondent and then it contains a mention about the gold ornaments or cash and other articles which were allegedly presented to the petitioners 1 to 3. It would be relevant to set out the said paragraph and it reads as follows: “The marriage of the complainant was solemnized with the accused No.1 Kiran Singh on 4th May, 2005 at No.10-956, Street No.3, Opp.Seethalamatha temple, Lower Dhoolpet, Hyderabad. According to Hindu rites and customs before the all relatives and friends from both the sides. And at the time ofmarriage as per the demands of the accused persons the parents of the complainant gave 95 tolas of gold ornaments (80 tolas to the complainant and 15 tolas of the gold to the accused persons) Rs.15,00 Lakhs cash, 2 Kg silver, Hero Honda Splendor Motorcycle, 3 door Almirah, Colour T.V., Fridge, Washing Machine, Air cooler, Dining table, Sofaset, Handy Camera, house hold articles steel and Brass worth of Rs.40,000/- 200 sarees and cash of Rs.20,000/- for cloth to the accused No.1 were given as dowry at the time of the marriage and apart from the dowry spent Rs.3,00,000/- towards the marriage expenses. After the marriage the complainant joined the company of the accused No.1 for leading a marital life at the house of the accused persons.” 7. The first complaint then sets out the alleged cruelty meted out to the second respondent by all the accused therein i.e. the petitioners herein and their close relatives and also the additional dowry demands made by them apart from the demand of the articles and cash mentioned in the above paragraph. 8. Then coming to the second complaint registered as Crime No.122 of 2007 of Mangalhat Police Station, the offences of Sections 420 and 406 IPC referred to therein are alleged in respect of the very same articles and cash mentioned in the first complaint and the allegations pertaining to them are contained in paragraphs 2 and 8 of the said second complaint. They read as follows: “2. The complainant submits that her marriage with the accused No.1 was solemnied on 4th May, 2005 at 10-956, Street No.3, Opp.Seethalamatha Temple, Lower Dhoolpet, Hyderabad, according to Hindu Rites and Customs before all the relatives and friends from both the sides. That at the time of marriage as per the demands of the accused persons and their family members the parents of the complainant gave 95 tolas of gold ornaments (80 tolas to the petitioner and 15 tolas to the accused persons), Rs.15,00,000/- net cash, 2 Kgs Silver, Hero Honda Splendor motorcycle, 3 door almirah, colour T.V., fridge, washing machine, air cooler, dining table, sofa set, handy camera, household articles steel and bras worth Rs.40,000/-, 200 sarees and cash of Rs.20,000/- for cloth to the accused were given as dowry at the time of marriage and apart from the dowry spent Rs.3,00,000/- towards the marriage expenses. That at the time of entrusting all the above said dowry videography and photographs were taken. After the marriage the complainant joined the company of the accused Npo.1 for leading a marital life at the house of the accused No.1 and his family members. 8. The complainant submits that on 24-11-2006 at the time of remand of the accused No.1, when the relatives and father of the complainant had asked the accused No.1regarding the jewellery and other articles belonging to the complainant, he promised that after obtaining bail he will return back all the belongings of the complainant, which were presented by her parents at the time of her marriage, which are in his custody. Later, the other community elders had requested the accused No.2,3 and 4 for returning of articles which are in their custody at the resident of A.1 to A.3, the accused NO.4 who is the uncle of accused No.1 has also ensured in panchayat that he is gong to return back the entire dowry articles, Rs.15,00,000/- cash, 95 tolas of gold, 2 Kgs Silver along with the complainant sarees. But as on till today they have failed to return back the articles of the complainant.” 9. In the second complaint mention is also made about the giving or the filing of the first complaint which was earlier registered as Crime No.336 of 2006 of the Women Police Station. It is thus clear from the relevant paragraphs in both the complaints mentioned supra, that in the first complaint only offences relating to dowry harassment, cruelty and the offences under the DP Act are mentioned and further the details of the gold and silver items and other articles given towards dowry are also mentioned. The second complaint relates to alleged misappropriation or criminal breach of trust relating to the said gold and silver items and other articles which are already mentioned in the first complaint. 10. Regarding the commission of the offences of criminal breach of trust and misappropriation of the above gold, silver items and other articles, what is alleged in the second complaint is that after registration of the first case the first petitioner was arrested on 24.11.2006 and at that time the first petitioner and his parents and the fourth petitioner herein promised to return the gold and silver articles and other items and belongings of the de facto complainant but they did not return them and committed criminal breach of trust in respect of the same. 11. The question now is whether it was open for the police who were investigating the first case i.e. the one in Crime No.336 of 2006 to investigate these offences also in that case. The answer to this question, in my opinion, should be in the affirmative for the following reasons. In the first complaint it is alleged that all the aforesaid items are said to have been given on the alleged demand of the petitioners 1 to 3 and the other accused mentioned in the first case at the time of marriage of the second respondent with the first petitioner. If the allegations relating to dowry demands and the giving of the articles mentioned supra by the parents of the second respondent are true they do disclose offences punishable under Section 3 and 4 of the DP Act. Further the second respondent would also be entitled to return of the said articles or cash under Section 6 of the said Act. 12. It therefore follows that if the dowry demand version of the second respondent is true and the giving of the above articles towards dowry is also true she would be entitled to get back the same under Section 6 of the DP Act and if the petitioners 1 to 3 fail to return the same and misappropriated the same that may again disclose offences of criminal breach of trust and misappropriation. It is of-course for the police to ascertain about the truthfulness or otherwise of all these allegations. 13. What should be noted from the above allegations in both the complaints is that the taking of cash and articles towards dowry and misappropriation or commission of criminal breach of trust in respect of the same would form part of the same transaction or transactions which are already alleged in the first case and even though there may be a time gap from the date of giving of the dowry and the date on which they are said to have been misappropriated still it cannot be said, having regard to the circumstances of this case, the said offences are committed in different transactions. The evidence which may be collected with regard to the offences mentioned in the second case would again be the evidence of the second respondent and her parents and other relatives and therefore it cannot be said that there will be any mis-joinder of charges also if the offences in the second complaint are taken up for investigation with the investigation of the offences mentioned in the first complaint. So far as the fourth petitioner herein is concerned, his case will be dealt with separately. 14. Thus in the circumstances of this case it was totally unnecessary for the second respondent or her parents to file a second complaint with regard to the alleged misappropriation of ‘dowry articles’ and belongings of the second respondent. In fact the filing of the first complaint is mentioned in the second complaint also. It appears that the I-CMM and Mangalhat Police Station missed this aspect and that resulted in registration of the second case. 15. In BABUBHAI vs. STATE OF GUJARAT[1] relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the Apex Court after considering the previous case law on the subject held that where a second FIR is given in respect of offences which are same or connected with the offences mentioned in the first FIR so as to form part of the same transaction, then the registration of the second FIR for such connected offences is not permissible. It is not necessary to go into the facts of the said case, but that principle for the reasons stated supra applies here also. A perusal of both the complaints in the present case would show that the offences alleged in the second case can be treated as those forming part of the same transaction in which the offences mentioned in the first complaint are said to have been committed. In view of this I am of the opinion that the registration of the second FIR i.e. Crime No.122 of 2007 of Mangalhat Police Station was unnecessary as the offences alleged in the said FIR can be more conveniently and effectively investigated along with the offences mentioned in the first case/FIR i.e. Crime No.336 of 2006 of Women Police Station, Central Crime Station, Hyderabad. 16. Then coming to the case against the fourth petitioner herein namely Ramraj Singh he is said to be an uncle of the first petitioner. The allegations made against him are that after the arrest of the first petitioner on 24.11.2006, a panchayat was held and in that panchayat/mediation this fourth petitioner participated in it and ensured that he would see that petitioners 1 to 3 would return the articles in question to the de facto complainant and her parents but he failed to keep his word. These allegations against the fourth petitioner are stated in para-8 of the second complaint. No other allegations are made against him. 17. It may be noted that normally when a panchayat is held it may be usual for an elder who participates in the panchayat/mediation to give a word that the party at fault would undo the damage done by him but if the party at fault does not keep his word the elder cannot be made liable for any criminal offence merely on that ground. In my view the above allegations against the fourth petitioner herein even if believed to be true, no inference can be drawn that he has also committed the offences of misappropriation or criminal breach of trust. Thus I am of the opinion that the proceedings against him in the second FIR should be quashed. 18. Accordingly for the aforesaid reasons the proceedings in Crime No.122 of 2007 of Mangalhat Police Station are quashed against the fourth petitioner and this petition in so far as he is concerned is allowed. 19. Then turning to the relief to be granted to the petitioners 1 to 3, they have sought for quashing of the FIR in Crime No.122 of 2007 of Mangalhat Police Station against them also. It may however be noted that complaint in this Crime No.122 of 2007 disclose new offences against the petitioners which were not specifically mentioned in the earlier Crime No.336 of 2006 of Women Police Station, Central Crime Station, Hyderabad. 20. It has been seen supra that these new offences could as well be investigated in the aforesaid Crime No.336 of 2006 as all the offences can be said to have been committed in the course of the same transaction. Hence petitioners 1 to 3 cannot be granted the relief of quashing the proceedings in Crime No.122 of 2007 of Mangalhat Police Station. In the circumstances what all that can be done according to law is that the said Crime No.122 of 2007 of Mangalhat Police Station should be ordered to be transferred to the aforesaid Women Police Station where Crime No.336 of 2006 is already registered so that both the FIRs may be investigated by the said police as one case. There shall be an order accordingly directing the Mangalhat police to transfer the record in Crime No.122 of 2007 to the aforesaid Women Police Station under intimation to the concerned Court for investigation. The said police shall also be at liberty to exercise their power of doing further investigation under Section 173 Cr.P.C if necessary if they have already filed charge sheet in Crime No.336 of 2006. 21. Parting with the matter, it is made clear that if in investigation in Crime No.336 of 2006 if police find material about the alleged complicity of the fourth petitioner also or some others in respect of the offences in the second case or even in the first case, it shall be open for them to take appropriate action against him or the others. This provision is made as it is well settled that an FIR is not be all and end all. It is also made clear that Section 319 Cr.P.C powers of the Court trying the case relating to all the offences in both the crimes shall also remain unfettered. This criminal petition in so far as the fourth petitioner is concerned is accordingly allowed and it is disposed of in the above terms in respect of the petitioners 1 to 3. ______________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J 7th April 2011 CVRK [1] (2010) 12 SCC 254