1 WP-2222-501-511-09.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Mhi CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2222 OF 2008 ALONG WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PEITION NO. 501 OF 2009 ALONG WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 511 OF 2009 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITIN NO. 2222 OF 2008 Mr. Kamal Chamanlal Saigal ... Petitioner Vs. Mrs. Narender Rambabu Arora & Ors. Respondents CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION N. 501 OF 2009 Mr. Vijay Satpal Mehra ... Petitioner vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 511 OF 2009 Mrs. Meena Kamal Saigal ... Petitioners Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. R.S.Apte, Senior Counsel i/b. Jagdish Reddy,Advocates, for the petitioner (in W.P. Nos.222/2008 & 501/2009) and i/b. N.R.Bubna, Advocate for the petitioner (in W.P. NO.511/2009). Mr. P.S.Hingorani, APP, fr the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 - State and respondent Nos. 3 & 4 in W.P. Nos.501/09 and 511/09. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 7th April, 2011. 2 WP-2222-501-511-09.sxw P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned APP. The Advocates for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, who are the original complainants are not present. Perused the record. 2. Though the petitions are on board for admission and not for final disposal, in view of the order which I propose to pass, no prejudice is likely to cause to the complainants and/or prosecution and, therefore, I propose to dispose of these petitions at the admission stage. 3. To state in brief, the complainant Rambabu Arora, who was a financier, had advanced a loan of Rs.18 lakh to accused Rohinton Patel against mortgage/security of flat No.303A, 3rd floor, "Labaik House", Chimbai Village, Bandra (W), Mumbai and accordingly a memorandum of understanding was executed between the said complainant and the accused persons. One Kamal Saigal, who himself is an advocate, had acted as a middleman for getting the loan sanctioned. Out of the loan amount, a sum of Rs.12 lakh was paid to the said accused persons by cheque and remaining amount of Rs.6 lakh was paid in cash. 3 WP-2222-501-511-09.sxw Subsequently, the complainant came to know that the documents of the said flat, on the basis of which the loan was secured, were forged. Therefore, he lodged complaint before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 9th Court, Bandra, Mumbai. The learned Magistrate directed the Khar Police Station to make investigation under Sec. 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and to submit report. On the basis of that order, at Khar Police Station, the offence, being MECR no.6/1999 was registered against Kamal Saigal and others under Sections 420 and 406 of IPC. When the investigation was pending, said Kamal Saigal filed Criminal Application No.2147/1999 to quash the proceedings and this Court had by order dated 3.8.99 stayed the further investigation. In view of this, no investigation could be made by the Khar Police. Th said Criminal Application No.2147/99 was disposed of on 8.1.2008 as withdrawn. Thus, Khar Police could not make investigation in the case for about 9 years because of the stay granted by this Court. 4. However, meanwhile, the complainant filed a fresh complaint in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, 37th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai. The learned Magistrate directed the Colaba Police Station to investigate the case under Sec. 156(3) of Cr.P.C. On the basis of that order, the Colaba Police registered the office as MECR No.2/2008 against several persons under Sections 463, 464, 467, 409, 420 read with Sec. 120B of IPC and commenced the investigation. 4 WP-2222-501-511-09.sxw 5. The main grievance of the petitioner is that on the basis of the same facts, the complainant could not have filed two complaints nor two FIRs could be registered nor two police stations could make investigation in the case simultaneously. Mr. Apte, learned Senior Counsel has contended that on same facts, two FIRs could not be registered at two different police stations and in support of this he relied upon T.T. Antony vs. State of Kerala & Ors. AIR 2001 SC 2637. There can be no dispute about this legal proposition. On the basis of the same facts and grievance, the complainant had filed first complaint before the Bandra Court and on the basis of the direction given by this Court, an offence was registered at Khar Police Station in 1999. He filed second complaint before the Esplanade court and on the direction given by that Court, the offence was registered by Colaba Police Station in the year 2008 and made some investigation. Even though Khar Police Station could not make investigation because of the stay granted by this Court, the complainant would not be right and be entitled to file fresh complaint on the basis of the same facts before another Court. In view of this, registration of second case and FIR at Colaba Police Station will have to be quashed. The learned Counsel for the petitioner concedes that they will have no objection if all the documents collected and the statements recorded by Colaba police are transferred to Khar Police Station after quashing the FIR at Colaba 5 WP-2222-501-511-09.sxw Police. 6. In view of the above, all these petitions stand disposed of with the following directions :- The complaint filed before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 37th Court, Esplanade as well as MECR No.2/2008 registered at Colaba Police Station stand quashed. However, all the investigation papers, including documents collected and statements recorded by Colaba Police in the said case shall be transferred to Khar Police Station, who shall carry out investigation in MECR No.6/1999. As there is no stay, the investigation shall be completed as early as possible and appropriate report be submitted to the concerned Court. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)