The Court directed the amalgamation of two FIRs regarding the alleged fraudulent transfer of a truck under Section 482 CrPC to ensure effective investigation and secure justice.
Garchuk Police Station directed to amalgamate Garchuk P.S. Case No. 661/2019 with Garchuk P.S. Case No. 565/2019 for common investigation.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010036552021
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.Pet./130/2021
BHASKAR JYOTI GOGOI
S/O SRI BOLA RAM GOGOI, R/O CHINAKI PATH, HOUSE NO. 5, ZOO ROAD, P.O.-ZOO ROAD TINIALI, P.S.-GEETANAGAR, DIST-KAMRUP(M), ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM
2:BIREN HALOI S/O LATE MADHAB GOGOI R/O GARCHUK GAROPARA P.S.-GARCHUK GUWAHATI DIST-KAMRUP(M) ASSAM PIN-78103
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR S BORTHAKUR
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
Page No.# 2/4
BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HITESH KUMAR SARMA
ORDER
Date : 22-03-2021
This is an application filed under Section 482 of the Cr.PC seeking quashment of the FIR in Garchuk Police Station Case No. 661/2019, registered under Sections 419/420/468 of the IPC.
I have heard Mr. S Borthakur, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mrs. SH Borah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State respondent No. 1.
The respondent No. 2, Biren Haloi/informant of the case has been represented by Mr. P Sharmah, learned counsel.
On perusal of the contents of the petition as well as the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it appears that apart from the Garchuk P.S. Case No. 565/2019 registered on the basis of the FIR dated 05.08.2019, a 2nd FIR dated 11.09.2019 was filed on same facts, vide Garchuk P.S. Case No. 661/2019. The copies of both the FIRs are annexed at page 21 and pages 30 to 31 of the petition, respectively. It has come out from the 1st FIR, dated, 05.08.2019, referred to above, that the accusedpetitioner had taken a truck (oil tanker) bearing No. AS-01-EC-4681 owned by the informant/respondent No. 2 on oral agreement that he would pay monthly to the informant/respondent No. 2 against use of the said truck (oil tanker) on trip wise basis. However, to the utter shock of the respondent No. 2/informant, the petitioner is found to have transferred the said truck (oil tanker) to one Prasanta Kumar Gogoi. According to the informant/respondent No. 2, the petitioner has fraudulently converted the documents and transferred the tanker to Prasanta Kumar Gogoi by way of sale. The respondent No. 2/informant has not been paid his dues by the petitioner. The 2nd FIR, dated 11.09.2019, on perusal, appears to be on the same facts with intimation of some additional facts in
Page No.# 3/4
respect of the occurrence alleged in the 1st FIR. It has also been specifically stated in the 2nd FIR that the aforesaid truck (oil tanker) was sold to aforesaid Prasanta Kumar Gogoi on hypothecation from HDFC Bank, wherein it has been shown that the said truck (oil tanker) was transferred to Prasanta Kumar Gogoi by the respondent No.2/informant, which fact is stoutly denied by the respondent No. 2/informant in his FIR. The same kind of allegations with that of the 1st FIR has been made in the subsequent FIR.
On examination of both the FIRs, it is found that basically the allegation in both the FIRs are same and Garchuk Police Station registered the subsequent FIR as Garchuk P.S. Case No. 661/2019 under Sections 419/420/468 of the IPC and the earlier FIR was registered as Garchuk P.S. Case No. 565/2019 under Sections 420/406/468 of the IPC.
Mrs. Borah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has conceded that the allegations contained in both the FIRs can be investigated in the same case, the facts being coming out from the same transaction.
Mr. Sharmah, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2/informant has also fairly agreed that if both the FIRs, referred to above, are amalgamated and a common investigation is carried out in view of the observations made above, it would rather be appropriate.
As submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2/informant, this Court observes that since the 2nd FIR is also directed to be amalgamated with the 1st FIR, the contents of the 2nd FIR be also taken into consideration while carrying out the common investigation.
That being so, considering the materials in the case diary as well as the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, the Garchuk Police Station is directed to amalgamate the 2nd FIR, dated 11.09.2019 being Garchuk P.S. Case No. 661/2019 under Sections 419/420/468 of the IPC with the 1st FIR dated 05.08.2019, being Garchuk P.S. Case No. 565/2019, under Sections 420/406/468 of the IPC to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court and to secure the ends of justice by invoking the
Page No.# 4/4
provisions of Section 482 of the Cr.PC.
With the above observations and directions, this petition stands disposed of at this motion stage itself.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
1 issue framed by the court
Whether two FIRs based on the same facts regarding fraudulent transfer of a truck should be amalgamated to prevent abuse of court processes.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Bhaskar Jyoti Gogoi
The State of Assam
Biren Haloi
Hitesh Kumar Sarma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
