E. Ramakrishnaiah vs State

A.N. Venugopal Gowda, J.—The petitioner was a CL-1 licencee and carried on the business in wholesale liquor, under the name and style M/s. Anuraga Enterprises. Excise Commissioner having directed the departmental staff to conduct detailed verification of the transaction of the wholesale dealers in Bengaluru (U) District, as per an order dated 06.09.1997, verification of accounts of M/s. Anuraga Enterprises, was taken up by a duly constituted team. A report dated 07.01.1998 vide Annexure-D having been submitted, a criminal case was registered in FIR No. 40/97-98, on 22.01.1998. After investigation, charge sheet was filed on 23.04.1999 for the offences punishable under Ss. 13(2), 39, 41, 32, 34 and 36B of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965. Plea of the accused was recorded on 15.10.2003. Trial has commenced in C.C. No. 16380/1999.

A complaint dated 23.09.2009 vide Annexure-B having been lodged, FIR vide Annexure-A, in Crime No. 270/2009 was registered on 23.09.2009 by the respondent. Seeking quashing of the second FIR vide Annexure-A, this petition was filed on 08.06.2011.

Learned HCGP having not made any submission as to filing of 2 FIRs on the same allegations against the petitioner i.e., pursuant to the order passed on 28.06.2011, an interim stay of further proceedings in Crime No. 270/2009 of the first respondent, pending on the file of VII ACMM, Bengaluru was ordered on 30.10.2010.

Sri T. Prakash, learned advocate, contended that on the same set of facts and allegations, which are subject matter of trial in C.C. No. 16380/1999, the Inspector could not have filed a second complaint on 23.09.2009 vide Annexure-B for the offences punishable under Ss. 465, 471 and 420 IPC nor the FIR registered vide Annexure-A. He submitted that the allegations made against the petitioner in Annexure-A and those appearing in Annexure-E being one and the same and also arising out of the same cause of action, there is abuse of process of Court by the respondent. Alternatively, learned counsel contended that the complaint filed vide Annexure-B is barred by limitation, since, for the offences under Ss. 468, 420 and 471 IPC, maximum punishment prescribed being 7 years and 3 years respectively, the complaint ought to have been filed within the maximum period of 7 years. Learned counsel submitted that the alleged offences having taken place during 1995-96, the complaint filed vide Annexure-B and FIR registered vide Annexure-A, is beyond the period of limitation. Placing reliance on the decision in T.T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala and Others, AIR 2001 SC 2637 : (2001) CriLJ 3329 : (2001) 3 Crimes 276 : (2001) 5 JT 440 : (2001) 4 SCALE 348 : (2001) 6 SCC 181 : (2001) 3 SCR 942 : (2001) AIRSCW 2571 : (2001) 5 Supreme 131 , learned counsel submitted that the second FIR registered vide Annexure-A is liable to be quashed.

Learned HCGP, on the other hand, submitted that the charge sheet vide Annexure-E being for the offences punishable under Ss. 13(2), 39, 41, 32, 34 and 36B of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 and the complaint lodged vide Annexure-B, registered as FIR vide Annexure-A, being for different offences i.e., under Ss. 465, 420 and 471 of IPC, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in exercise of power under S. 482 of Cr.P.C.

Considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

In T.T. Antony (supra), Apex Court has considered a case, wherein, in respect of the same cognizable offence and the same occurrence, 2 FIRs had been lodged. Therein, it has been held as follows:

"There can be no second FIR and no fresh investigation on receipt of every subsequent information in respect of the same cognizable offence or same occurrence giving rise to one or more cognizable offences".

It was made clear that the investigating agency has to proceed only on the information about the commission of cognizable offence. Thus, it is clear that, if the two FIRs, relate the same incident in respect of the same occurrence, the second FIR is liable to be quashed.

The instant case is required to be examined in the light of the said legal proposition and also in terms of the ratio of decision in Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah Vs. The Central Bureau of Investigation and Another, (2013) 3 ABR 1116 : (2013) 4 AD 449 : AIR 2013 SC 3794 : (2013) CriLJ 2313 : (2013) 2 Crimes 171 : (2013) 4 JT 333 : (2013) 2 RCR(Criminal) 819 : (2013) 5 SCALE 407 : (2013) 6 SCC 348 : (2013) AIRSCW 2353 : (2013) 2 Supreme 705 .

In the instant case, the charge sheet vide Annexure-E having been filed based on the report vide Annexure D, when read along with the allegations made in Annexure-B, for which, the FIR vide Annexure-A was registered, it is clear that both the FIRs relate to the same incident and in respect of the same occurrence. Hence, the decisions, noticed supra, squarely apply.

Resultantly, the petition is allowed and the FIR in Crime No. 270/2009 dated 23.09.2009 vide Annexure-A of the respondent, pending on the file of VII ACMM, Bengaluru City, is quashed. However, it is open to the Investigating Officer to seek leave of the Court, wherein, the criminal case vide Annexure-E is pending and proceed in accordance with law.

Though the proceedings of C.C. No. 16380/1999 was not stayed, without even perusing the interim order dated 30.10.2010 passed in this petition, the matter has been kept pending. In view of the long pendency of the case, the learned Magistrate shall take expeditious action and decide C.C. No. 16380/1999 without further delay and before 30.09.2015.