P. Pavan Kumar Reddy vs The State of Karnataka and Others

A.V. Chandrashekara, J—Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional SPP Sri. Prakash Yeli.

The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. requesting this Court to quash the criminal proceedings, initiated against him in Crime No. 97/2015 registered by the Market Yard police station, Raichur for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 409 and 420 read with Section 34 of IPC.

The grievance of the petitioner is that on the same set of facts, a case is already registered against him by Kadugodi police station, Bangalore city in Crime No. 162/2015 on 04.07.2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 408 and 420 of IPC.

What is argued by Sri. Avinash Uploankar the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the contents of the FIR lodged by one Sri. A. Dayanand, Vice President of the respondent No. 2/Company is that this petitioner used to extract money from the customers as kick-back and caused financial loss to the respondent/Company.

The learned Additional SPP Sri. Prakash Yeli has submitted that the allegation made in the FIR relating to registration of a case in Crime No. 162/2015, on the file Kadugodi police station are almost similar to the one found in the FIR lodged by Sri. A. Dayanand, which is the basis for subsequent registration of a case in Crime No. 97/2015. After perusing the first information lodged by Sri. Dayanand, Vice President of respondent No. 2 Company, allegations are almost similar those allegations relate to the misappropriation of the amount of respondent No. 2 Company, by the petitioner.

The Hon''ble Supreme Court in the decision reported 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 , has held that 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 an incident giving rise to a cognizable offence or offences and on entering the FIR in the station house diary, the officer in charge of a police station has to investigate not 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 Cr.P.C.

In the present case, the allegation made in both the cases are similar and the decision rendered in T.T. Antony''s case is applicable to the case on hand. In the light of subsequent registration of a case in Crime No. 97/2015 by the Market Yard police station, Raichur will have to be sent to Kadugodi police station, Bangalore City to conduct comprehensive investigation since the allegation found in Crime No. 97/2015 is nothing but replica of the FIR relating to Crime No. 162/2015 and the FIR registered in Crime No. 162/2015 would be the FIR filed under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. for all practical purposes. Hence, I pass the following:

ORDER

Petition is disposed of in terms of the decision rendered in T.T. Antony''s case. The I.O. conducting the investigation in Crime No. 97/2015, registered by Market Yard police Station, Raichur to transfer the case to Kadugodi police station, Bangalore City to conduct comprehensive investigation in the case already registered in Crime No. 162/2015 of Kadugodi police station.

The learned Additional SPP to intimate the same both the police stations.

In view of disposal of main petition, I.A. 1/2015 does not survive for consideration.