Allowed

Smt Pushpa v. State by Devanahalli Police

Karnataka HC21 Feb 2026WP/19757/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Three writ petitions challenged three criminal cases filed by the same complainant over the same land transactions. The Court held the successive FIRs and charge sheets were barred by the doctrine of sameness against multiple FIRs for the same offence and quashed all three pending proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in C.C.No.3907/2021, C.C.No.4711/2022 and C.C.No.4716/2022 quashed.

Smt Pushpa Vs State by Devanahalli Police — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION No.19757 OF 2023 (GM - RES)

¶6

C/W

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.19792 OF 2023 (GM - RES) WRIT PETITION NO.21813 OF 2023 (GM - RES)

¶8

IN WRIT PETITION NO.19757 OF 2023

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

1 . SMT.PUSHPA

¶11

W/O MUNIRAJU

¶12

AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT NO. 2231/1, ‘D’ BLOCK,

¶13

NEAR WATER TANK,

¶14

SHANKARANAGAR BENGALURU – 560 092.

¶15

2 . K.MUNIRAJU

¶16

S/O KEMPANNA

¶17

AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT NO. 2231/1, ‘D’ BLOCK, NEAR WATER TANK, SHANKARANAGAR

¶18

BENGALURU – 560 092.

¶19

... PETITIONERS

¶20

(BY SRI BIPIN HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

¶21

¶22

AND:

¶23

1 . STATE BY DEVANAHALLI POLICE BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶24

2 . SRI DINESH KALLAHALLI S/O RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O KALLALLI VILLAGE AND POST, KANAKPURA TALUK, RAMANAGAR DISTRICT – 562 117.

¶25

... RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SMT.SOWMYA R., HCGP FOR R-1; SRI ASHWIN VAISH, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE CRIMINAL CASE IN C.C.NO. 3907/2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-D AGAINST THE PETITIONERS FOR THE OFFENSES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 465, 468, 420 READ WITH SECTION 34 IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DEVANAHALLI REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT ON THE BASIS OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE – B IN SO FAR AS PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED.

¶28

¶29

IN WRIT PETITION NO.19792 OF 2023 BETWEEN:

¶30

1 . SRI K.MUNIRAJU S/O KEMPANNA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT NO. 2231/1, ‘D’ BLOCK, NEAR WATER TANK, SHANKARANAGAR BENGALURU – 560 092.

¶31

2 . SMT. PUSHPA W/O K.MUNIRAJU AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT NO. 2231/1, ‘D’ BLOCK, NEAR WATER TANK, SHANKARANAGAR BENGALURU – 560 092.

¶32

... PETITIONERS

¶33

(BY SRI BIPIN HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

¶34

AND:

¶35

1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH DEVANAHALLI POLICE, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶36

2 . SRI DINESH KALLAHALLI S/O RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O KALLALLI VILLAGE AND POST, KANAKPURA TALUK, RAMANAGAR DISTRICT – 562 117.

¶37

... RESPONDENTS

¶38

(BY SMT.SOWMYA R., HCGP FOR R-1;

¶39

¶40

SRI ASHWIN VAISH, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶41

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO DIRECTION TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AT ANNX-F IN CC NO. 4711/2022, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 417, 418, 420 R/W SECTION 34 IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DEVANAHALLI, WHICH WAS REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS IS CONCERNED ON THE BASIS OF THE COMPLIANT FILED BY THE R2 VIDE ANNEXURE-D.

¶42

IN WRIT PETITION NO.21813 OF 2023 BETWEEN:

¶43

1 . SRI K. MUNIRAJU S/O KEMPANNA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT NO. 2231/1,’D’ BLOCK, NEAR WATER TANK, SHANKARANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 092.

¶44

2 . SMT.PUSHPA W/O K.MUNIRAJU AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT NO. 2231/1, ‘D’ BLOCK, NEAR WATER TANK, SHANKARANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 092.

¶45

... PETITIONERS

¶46

(BY SRI BIPIN HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

¶47

¶48

AND:

¶49

1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH DEVANAHALLI POLICE REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶50

2 . SRI DINESH KALLAHALLI S/O RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/O KALLALLI VILLAGE AND POST, KANAKPURA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT – 562 117.

¶51

... RESPONDENTS

¶52

(BY SMT.SOWMYA R., HCGP FOR R-1; SRI ASHWIN VAISH, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶53

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO.4716/2022 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 417, 418, 420 R/W SECTION 34 IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DEVANAHALLI WHICH WAS REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED VIDE ANNEXURE-D.

¶54

THESES WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶55

¶56

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶57

CAV ORDER

¶58

Petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 and respondent No.2/ complainant are common in all these writ petitions. The petitioners are at the doors of this Court calling in question proceedings in (i) C.C.No.3907 of 2021 arising out of Crime No.47 of 2017 registered for offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC concerning Writ Petition No.19757 of 2023; (ii) C.C.No.4711 of 2022 arising out of Crime No.153 of 2017 registered for offence punishable under Sections 468, 471, 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC concerning Writ Petition No.19792 of 2023 and (iii) C.C.No.4716 of 2022 arising out of Crime No.46 of 2017 registered for offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC concerning Writ Petition No.21813 of 2023.

¶59

Heard in these petitions Sri Bipin Hegde, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Smt. R. Sowmya, learned High Court

¶60

¶61

Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri Ashwin Vaish, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

¶62

Facts, in brief, in Writ Petition No.19757 of 2023 are noticed for the sake of convenience, which are similar in other writ petitions and they are as follows:

¶63

3.1. The subject matter of challenge of the proceedings is a land in Sy.No.51/2 which originally belonged to Smt. C. Rukmini who executed a sale deed on 01-04-1961 in favour of Y.C. Krishnaiah. The properties in Sy.No.192 situated at Sanna Amanikere Village, Devanahalli Taluk, which originally belonged to Sanjeevaiah and Muddappa, were sold to Y.C.Krishnaiah and his wife Smt. Lalithamma by way of two sale deeds dated 12.02.1965 and 06.05.1965. After holding the land for long, Y.C. Krishnaiah and his family members have executed a registered General Power of Attorney (‘GPA’) and agreement of sale in favour of one Muniraju, the 2^nd petitioner in respect of Sy.Nos.51/2 and 192 of Sanna Amanikere Village, Devanahalli Taluk, Bangalore Rural District. Petitioner No.2 being the GPA holder of Y.C. Krishnaiah executes a registered sale deed on 02-07-2010 in favour of one

¶64

¶65

Prateek Kumar. The said Prateek Kumar in turn executes a GPA and an agreement of sale in favour of the 2^nd petitioner. Petitioner No.2, as a General Power of Attorney holder of Prateek Kumar, executed a sale deed dated 11-09-2015 in respect of Sy.No.192 of Sanna Amanikere village, Devanahalli Taluk in favour of petitioner No.1/accused No.1. Transactions this way happened and on the basis of the GPA, petitioner No.2 executes a sale deed on 06-10-2015 in respect of Sy.No.51/2 measuring 1 acre 11 guntas of Bychapura Village, Devanahalli Taluk, Bangalore Rural District. When things stood thus, the Apex Court, in terms of its order dated 02-02-2016, constituted a committee under the Chairmanship of Justice R.M.Lodha, former Chief Justice of India, to take possession of the properties belonging to PACL Limited and auction the said properties to return the amounts to the investors/customers in the matter concerning PACL LIMITED VS. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA in Civil Appeal No.13394 of 2015.

¶66

3.2. Accused No.1, after constitution of the Committee, as aforesaid, enters into an agreement of sale of the property in Sy.No.192 measuring 2 acres 39 guntas in Sanna Ammanikere

¶67

¶68

Village, Kasaba Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bangalore Rural District for a sum of ₹1,71,00,000/- through registered sale deeds. The 2^nd respondent then registers a complaint against the petitioners and three other accused before the 1^st respondent, jurisdictional police. The Police then registers a crime in Crime No.47 of 2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The Police conduct investigation for four years and file a charge sheet against the petitioners arraigning them as accused Nos. 1 and 2 in terms of the charge sheet dated 10-04-2021. It is filing of the charge sheet and registration of C.C.No.3907 of 2021 for the afore-quoted offences, the petitioners are before this Court in the subject petition.

¶69

The learned counsel Sri Bipin Hegde appearing for the petitioners would submit that the land in question does not come within the ambit of what the Apex Court had directed with regard to taking possession of the property and delivering it to the investors. The offences alleged are the ones punishable under Sections 465, 468 and 420 of the IPC. The complainant, who is an RTI activist, has no locus to register the complaint, as he is not the one who is

¶70

¶71

lured to any transaction by the accused, these petitioners, with a dishonest intention. There is also no privity of contract between the petitioners and the 2^nd respondent/complainant. The Apex Court passed the order on 02-02-2016 and the transaction is of the year 2015 and the petitioners being bona fide purchasers for consideration were not at all aware of any order passed by the Apex Court. Above all, he would submit that the properties are not belonging to PACL Company for registering the crime. He would further submit that this very RTI activist has gone on registering complaints after complaints on the same cause of action and, therefore, it is an abuse of the process of law.

¶72

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent/complainant would contend that whether the property would come within the ambit of the judgment of the Apex Court or otherwise is a matter of evidence. The police after investigation have filed a charge sheet. In the light of filing of charge sheet, it becomes necessary for trial to be conducted and petitioners to come out clean. It is his contention that the complaint and the charge sheet would clearly indicate the offences alleged against

¶73

¶74

these petitioners. The concept of locus is alien to criminal jurisprudence. Therefore, he would contend that the petition be dismissed and the trial be permitted to continue.

¶75

The learned High Court Government Pleader would also toe the lines of the learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent/complainant in seeking dismissal of the petition.

¶76

I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.

¶77

The afore-narrated facts that led to the transaction are all matters of record. The Apex Court, in the case of SUBRATA BHATTACHARYA v. SECURITIES & EXCHANGE BOARD OF

¶78

INDIA¹ , has passed the following order:

¶79

“1. Heard Mr. C.A. Sundaram, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant-Company, Mr. Anil B. Divan, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Director of the Company and Mr. Arvind P. Datar, learned senior counsel

¶80

1 Civil Appeal No.13301 of 2015 and connected cases order dated 02-02-2016

¶81

¶82

appearing on behalf of Securities & Exchange Board of India (SEBI), on caveat.

¶83

2. Upon hearing the learned counsel and looking at the peculiar facts of the case, in the interest of the investors, we think it proper to pass this order with regard to interim arrangement, without going into the legality of the impugned judgment and without prejudice to the submission which might be made by the counsel at the time of further hearing of these matters and we direct that the appellant-Company shall not collect any further amount from any of the investors.

¶84

3. The SEBI shall constitute a Committee for disposing of the land purchased by the Company so that the sale proceeds can be paid to the investors, who have invested their funds in the Company for purchase of the land. Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.M. Lodha, the former Chief Justice of India, would be the Chairman of the said Committee. It would be open to the Hon'ble Chairman of the Committee to appoint such experts or other persons, as he might think it necessary, in consultation with the SEBI, so as to enable the Committee to sell the land and pay to the investors in a manner that might be decided by the said Committee.

¶85

4. A Nodal Officer shall be appointed, who shall be in-charge of the funds so collected and shall have a liaison with the Committee and shall also work as a Secretary to the said Committee.

¶86

5. The Committee shall collect relevant record, including Title Deeds from the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), if the CBI is in possession of any of the documents. Copies of the Title Deeds shall also be given to the Company so that the Company can also assist the Committee in the process of sale of the land.

¶87

6. The CBI is directed to hand over the documents, after retaining their copies, which might be required by the SEBI, so as to enable the Committee to sell the land. The CBI will be entitled to use the photocopies of the

¶88

¶89

Title Deeds, which will be handed over to it for Court proceedings.

¶90

7. The methodology with regard to recovery of amount by sale of the land and disbursement of the amount to the investors shall be overseen by the Members of the Committee.

¶91

Remuneration to be paid to the Chairman shall be determined by the Hon'ble Chairman himself after considering the quantum of work to be done by the Committee.

¶92

The work with regard to disposal of the land and disbursement of the proceeds to the investors be completed as soon as possible and preferably within six months from today.

¶93

The Registry is directed to forward copies of this order to Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.M. Lodha, the SEBI and the CBI. The Company and its Directors shall extend their cooperation to the Committee so that the Committee can function effectively to complete the work as soon as possible.

¶94

It would be open to the Hon'ble Chairman to make modification in the afore-stated arrangement and he is empowered to do whatever he thinks proper for disposal of the land and disbursement of the proceeds to the investors.

¶95

The amount, which is lying in the bank accounts of the Company and other cash belonging to the Company shall be released in favour of SEBI so that it can be used either for disbursement in favour of the investors or for incurring necessary expenditure. If any amount has been deposited by the Company or by its Directors or by any other person on behalf of the Company in any Court, the same shall be released in favour of the SEBI, who shall have a separate account so as to deal with the same. The Committee shall also decide as to whether the staff of the Company should be continued or relieved.

¶96

The decision with regard to sale of property of the Company by the Committee shall not be interfered with by any Court.

¶97

¶98

List the matters on 2^nd August, 2016 as Part-heard, so as to know the progress.”

¶99

(Emphasis supplied)

¶100

Long before the aforesaid order that could be passed by the Apex Court, several transactions which are purely civil in nature had taken place. The last of the transaction was the sale deed executed on 06-10-2015. The order of the Apex Court, as observed hereinabove, is dated 02-02-2016. Long after the Apex Court passing the aforesaid order, a complaint comes to be registered by the 2^nd respondent. The 2^nd respondent claims himself to be an RTI activist. Since the entire issue has now triggered from the complaint, I deem it appropriate to notice the complaint. The complaint reads as follows:

¶101

“From:

¶102

Dinesh Kallahalli, S/o Ramaiah, Kallahalli Village & Post, Kanakapura Taluk, Ramanagara District.

¶103

¶104

SHO, Police Station, Devanahalli, Bangalore Rural District.

¶105

Sub: Complaint against accused M.Pushpa and her husband K.Muniraju, both R/o 366, K.M.P. Arcade, Matadahalli, R.T.Nagar Main Road, Bangalore & Shankara Gowda Shivanna Gowdar, B.Nagarajappa and B.S. Manjunath for

¶106

¶107

committing acts of forgery and cheating the general public.

¶108

Sir,

¶109

I, the undersigned, am an RTI activist who considers it his duty to expose the criminal actions of the above said persons who vide sale agreements dated 2302-2017 have in collusion with one another effected sale of land belonging to PACL Ltd., which is the subject matter of auction process being carried out by the Hon’ble Mr. Justice Lodha Committee created by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India .

¶110

The backgrounds facts, in short, are as follows:-

¶111

The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its order dated February 02, 2016, in the matter of PACL Ltd. v. Securities and Exchange Board of India (Civil Appeal No.13394 of 2015) and other connected matters was pleased to constitute a committee under the chairmanship of Hon’ble Mr. Justice (Retd.) R.M. Lodha (Former Chief Justice of India) empowering the committee to take possession of the title deeds of PACL & sell/auction the properties in order to return to the investors/customers of PACL the monies invested by them in PACL Ltd. to the tune of ₹49,000/crores approximately . List of properties to be auctioned includes the property, which is subject matter of the present complaint. Copy enclosed.

¶112

Accordingly, the Committee has collected properties documents of PACL from CBI to initiate the process of disposing of properties to refund to the customer of PACL who have invested in various schemes of PACL Ltd., after verification of their genuineness. Meanwhile, customer of PACL has been informed and advised through public notice:-

¶113

(i) Not to part with and/or share records/documents of their investments in the schemes of PACL Ltd., with PACL or any other person, till further intimation in this regard by the Committee; and

¶114

¶115

(ii) Not to make any new investment or any payment towards installments or otherwise of PACL Ltd., or its officers/agents etc.

¶116

Contrary, to the intent of the said Committee, the accused persons in order to prevent the auction/sale of the following lands, encumbered the same by fraudulently executing sale agreement in relation to Survey No.192, measuring 2 acres 39 guntas of land, situated at Sanna Amanikere Village, Kasaba Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bangalore Rural District for a sum of ₹1,71,00,000/-. The fraudulent nature of the deal is evident from the fact that the so-called seller is not the title holder of the PACL Land and the buyer who is a teacher has purportedly paid cash as advance . Copy enclosed.

¶117

The above said document is registered with the Sub-Registrar, Devanahalli as document Nos.10580 on 23.02.2017 in Book-I and stored in CD No.DNHD630.

¶118

Unless, the present set of facts are investigated, the gross criminality committed by the accused persons which includes offence of forgery of sale documents, cheating the public by committing dishonest and fraudulent transfer of the said properties without adequate consideration, very well knowing that the said transfer shall obstruct the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

¶119

It is accordingly prayed that an FIR be registered in this regard under the relevant sections of forgery and cheating and the matter be investigated.

¶120

Thanking you,

¶121

Sd/- Dinesh Kallahalli, Mob: 9448618338 Date: 21^st April, 2017.”

¶122

The complaint, as observed, is by an RTI activist who is said to be

¶123

having avowed objectives of exposing criminal activities of several

¶124

¶125

persons. Taking cue from the judgment of the Apex Court quoted supra , the complaint comes to be registered. The complaint narrates that the Committee had collected all the documents of PACL from the hands of the CBI to initiate process of disposing of properties and to refund to the customers of PACL who had invested in various schemes of the said Company. The complaint no where narrates that the complainant is aggrieved of any transaction between him and the accused. The police conduct investigation for four years and then file a charge sheet on 10-04-2021 for offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 420 read with 34 of the IPC. The summary of the charge sheet as obtaining column No.7 reads as follows:

¶126

“ �ೆಂಗಳ�ರು �ಾ��ಾಂತರ ��ೆ� �ೇವನಹ�� ಾಲೂ�ಕು , ಸಣ�ಅ�ಾ !ೆ"ೆ �ಾ�ಮದ ಸ%ೇ& ನಂ .192 ಮತು' ಸ%ೇ& ನಂ . 51/2 ರ(�ನ 4 ಎಕ"ೆ 4 ಗುಂೆ !ಾಲಂ ನಂ . 4 ರ(� ನಮೂ+ರುವ ಎ 2 ಆ"ೋ-ಯು - . ಎ . + . ಎ/ ಕಂಪ ಯ ಪ�1 2�ೆ 34ಾಂಕ :02-07-2010 ರಂದು 5ೇ/ rÃqï 4ೋಂದ7 �ಾ8!ೊ9:ರು�ಾ'"ೆ . ನಂತರ - . ಎ . + . ಎ/ ಕಂಪ �ೆ 5ೇ;ದ ಆ+'ಗಳನು< ಹ"ಾಜು �ಾ8 ಬಂದ ಹಣ3ಂದ - . ಎ . + . ಎ/ ಕಂಪ ?ಂದ @ೕಸ!ೊAಳ�ಾದ ಹೂ8!ೆ�ಾರ;�ೆ ಹಂB!ೆ �ಾಡಲು ಸು-�ೕಂ !ೋD&ನ(� ಜ+:ೕE ( ವೃತ' ) ಆG . ಎಂ . �ೋHಾ ಕI9ಯು 34ಾಂಕ :02-02-2016 ರಂದು ಆ�ೇಶ �ಾ8ರುತ'�ೆ . KೕLರು%ಾ�ೆM !ಾಲಂ ನಂ .4 ರ(� ನಮೂ3+ರುವ J1 ಆ"ೋ-ಯು J4 ಆ"ೋ-Nಂ3�ೆ 5ೇ; ಸ%ೇ& ನಂ .192 ರ(�ನ 2 ಎಕ"ೆ 39 ಗುಂೆ ಜIೕನನು< 34ಾಂಕ :11-092015 ರಂದು ತನ< Oೆಸ;�ೆ 5ೇ/ 8ೕP 4ೊಂದ7 �ಾ8+!ೊಂ8ದುQ , ನಂತರ ಸದ; ಸ%ೇ& ನಂ .192 ಜIೕನನು< 34ಾಂಕ 23-02-2017 ರಂದು ಎ 3 ಆ"ೋ-�ೆ 5ೇ/ ಅ Væ RಂD UÉ J3 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ J5 Dg É ÆÃ¦U À ¼ À Ä ¸ÁQëzÁg À gÁVg À ÄvÁÛg É .

¶127

¶128

�ಾನS ಸTೕ&ಚV 4ಾSWಾಲಯದ ಆ�ೇಶವನು< Iೕ; ಆ"ೋ-ಗಳX - . ಎ . + . ಎ/ / ಕಂಪ �ೆ 5ೇ;ದ ಸಣ� ಅ�ಾ !ೆ"ೆ �ಾ�ಮದ ಸ%ೇ& ನಂ . 192 ರ(�ನ 2 KPÀgÉ 39 UÀÄAmÉ d«ÄÃ£À£ÀÄß Dg É ÆÃ¦U À ¼ À Ä ¸ É Ãj ¸ É Ã¯ï CV æ ª É ÄAmï ª À iÁrg À Äª À Åz À jAz À Dg É ÆÃ¦U À ¼ À Ä ª É ÆÃ¸ À J¸ À Vg À Äª À Åz À Ä

¶129

ಕಂಡುಬಂ3ರುತ'�ೆ .

¶130

ಆದQ;ಂದ ಆ"ೋ-ಗಳ YರುದZ ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ �ೋ[ಾ"ೋಪ\ೆ ಪ9: ಸ(�+ರುತ'�ೆ .”

¶131

Before embarking upon consideration of the subject challenge, it becomes necessary to notice the action of the complainant in registering crimes after crimes.

¶132

Now it becomes apposite to notice the complaint and the contents in Writ Petition No.19792 of 2023. The complainant is the same. The accused are the same except their rankings. The property involved is the same. The complaint so registered reads as follows:

¶133

“To

¶134

The SHO, Police Station, R.T.Nagar Main Road, Bangalore.

¶135

Sub: Complaint against K.Muniraju (S/o late Kempanna) & M.Pushpa (Wife of K.Muniraju) residing at 366, KMP Arcade, R.T.Nagar Main Road, Bangalore – 560 032 for cheating Canara Bank by mortgaging property bearing among others Survey No.51/2, Bychapura Village, Devanahalli.

¶136

Sir,

¶137

¶138

I, the undersigned am an RTI activist who has earlier filed complaints against different persons, entities including the accused herein, exposing acts of cheating, corruption and misuse & diversion of public funds. I have also filed complaint/s against attempts on the part of the accused persons trying to sell lands which are commonly referred to PACL properties, which are now under the control of the Hon’ble Mr.Justice Lodha Committee which is carrying out the process of auctioning the properties in terms of Hon’ble Supreme Court order.

¶139

The present crime arises out of separate set of facts which are as follows:-

¶140

In brief, the facts are that on 30-06-2010 a sale deed is executed by accused K.Muniraju representing Y.C. Krishnaiah and others in favour of Prateek Kumar, registering the property bearing Sy.No.51/2 as Doc.No.1274/10-11 along with one more property bearing Sy.No.192 of Sanna Amanikere Village, adjoining the above land.

¶141

A perusal of documents reveal that on 12-07-2012 a special power of attorney was issued by one Prateek Kumar in favour of one Nagarajappa. On 05-08-2015 an agreement to sell is executed by Nagarajappa representing as Special Power of Attorney holder for Prateek Kumar favouring K.Muniraju. On 05-08-2015 the Power of Attorney is misused and it is shown as if Prateek Kumar has re-transferred the said lands in favour of K.Muniraju. Similarly, on 06-10-2015 a sale deed is purportedly executed between Prateek Kumar in his absence favouring accused K.Muniraju.

¶142

In the meantime, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India passes an order directing the CBI to hand over all the title documents of PACL Ltd. to the Hon’ble Lodha Committee appointed for the purpose of auctioning the same and generating funds which ultimately will be used to meet the losses of the investors running currently into ₹81,500/- crores.

¶143

In order to defeat the said order and cheat public funds, on 17-02-2016 a gift deed is executed by accused K.Muniraju in favour of his accused wife M.Pushpa,

¶144

¶145

registered as Doc No.11167/2015-16. In the absence of the original title deeds; the same being with the Lodha Committee, the said gift deed was used to mislead the Bank into believing about the chain of documents and the same was used to secure a mortgage from Canara Bank. In this manner on 29-06-2016 a memorandum of deposit of title deeds availing loan of ₹10/- crores was executed by the accused with Canara Bank, Hebbal mortgaging the said property along with some other properties by accused M.Pushpa, wife of K.Muniraju towards the loan granted to Akash Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd., wherein both K.Muniraju and M.Pushpa are Directors, registered as Doc No.3046/16-17.

¶146

Interestingly, the said property has been further sold to somebody else.

¶147

The said facts clearly reveal that the said accused persons are leaving no stone unturned in cheating public authorities and banks on different occasions, whether by selling or by mortgaging lands not belonging to them and taking away public money.

¶148

Investigation from the Bank would confirm the said facts and therefore, it is necessary that an FIR be registered and matter be investigated in accordance with law.

¶149

Sd/- Dinesh Kallahalli, RTI Activist S/o Ramaiah, Kallahalli Village & Post, Kanakapura Taluk, Ramanagara District Mobile: 9448618338

¶150

Date: 22^nd May 2017.”

¶151

The complaint is verbatim similar. R.T.Nagar police have registered

¶152

a crime initially in Crime No.153 of 2017 and the same was transferred to the 1^st respondent-Police and registered as Crime No.107 of 2018 for offences punishable under Sections 468, 471,

¶153

¶154

420 read with 34 of the IPC. Again, the 1^st respondent Police take four years to investigate and file a charge sheet on 22-02-2022. The summary of the charge sheet, as obtaining in Column No.7 reads as follows:

¶155

"-.ಎ.+.ಎ/ ಕಂಪ �ೆ 5ೇ;ದ ಆ+'ಗಳನು< (Anx-6) ಹ"ಾಜು �ಾ8 ಬಂದ ಹಣ3ಂದ -.ಎ.+.ಎ/ ಕಂಪ ?ಂದ @ೕಸ!ೊAಳ�ಾದ ಹೂ8!ೆ�ಾರ;�ೆ ಹಂB!ೆ �ಾಡಲು ಸು-�ೕಂ !ೋmïð£À(� ಜ+:ೕE ( ವೃತ') �ಾನS^�ೕ Dgï.JA.¯ÉÆÃzsÁ ಕI9ಯು 34ಾಂಕ:02-02-2016 ರಂದು ಆ�ೇಶ(Anx-5) �ಾ8ರುತ'�ೆ .

¶156

�ೆಂಗಳ�ರು �ಾ��ಾಂತರ ��ೆ� �ೇವನಹ�� ಾಲೂ�ಕು, ಸಣ ಾ !ೆ"ೆ �ಾ�ಮದ ಸ%ೆ& ನಂ. 192(2.39 UÀÄAmÉ) Oಾಗೂ �ೈ`ಾಪaರ �ಾ�ಮದ ಸ%ೇ& ನಂ. 51/2(1.17 UÀÄAmÉ) d«ÄÃ£À£ÀÄß 34ಾಂಕ:28-06-2010 ರಂದು !ಾಲಂ ನಂ. 4 ರ(� ನಮೂ+ರುವ ಎl ಆ"ೋ-ಯು 5ಾb-4 ರವ;ಂದ 5ೇ/ ಅL�RಂD(Anx-7) 4ೋಂದ7 �ಾ8!ೊಂ8ರು�ಾ'"ೆ .

¶157

£ÀAvÀgÀ 34ಾಂಕ:30-06-2010 ರಂದು -.ಎ.+.ಎ/ ಕಂಪ ಯ ಪ�1 2 ಎ3 ಪರ%ಾದ ಆ"ೋ- ಎ4 ರವ;�ೆ 5ೇ/ 8ೕP(Anx-8) 4ೋಂದ7 �ಾ8!ೊಟು: 3:05-08-2015 gÀ L.¦.J. (Anx-9) ಹಕAನು< ಬಳ+!ೊಂಡು ಎl ಆ"ೋ-ಯು ಆ"ೋ- ಎ3 jAzÀ ಖ;ೕ3+ದಂ�ೆ 3:06-10--2015 vÀ£ÀUÉ vÁ£ÉÃ 5ೇ/ 8ೕP (Anx-10) 4ೋಂದ7 �ಾ8!ೊಂ8ರು�ಾ'"ೆ .

¶158

**- . ಎ . + . ಎ/ ಸeತು'ಗಳ ಪ9:ಯ(� RೕಲAಂಡ ಸ%ೆ& ನಂಬರುಗಳX ಇರುವaದು �ೊ1'ದQರೂ ಸಹ �ಾನS ಸTೕ&ಚV 4ಾSWಾಲಯದ ಆ�ೇಶವನು< ಉಲ�ಂh+ RೕಲAಂಡ ಸ%ೆ& ನಂಬರುಗiೆ�ಂ3�ೆ ಇತ"ೆ ಸ%ೆ& ನಂಬರುಗಳನು< 5ೇ;+!ೊಂಡು ವಂಚ4ೆ �ಾಡುವ ಸ�ಾನ ಉ�ೆQೕಶ3ಂದ ಅjಾ��ಾ7ಕ%ಾL ಎ l ಆ"ೋ-ಯು ಎ 2 ಆ"ೋ-�ೆ 34ಾಂಕ :17-02-2016 ರಂದು Lk: 8ೕP (Anx-11) �ಾ8!ೊ9:ರು�ಾ'"ೆ . ನಂತರ ಎ 2 ಆ"ೋ-ಯು ಸದ; ಜIೕ ನ �ಾಖ�ಾ1ಗಳ ಆHಾರ R@ರಂಡl ಆk mೆjಾ+D ೈಟ/ 8ೕPn (Anx-12) �ಾ8ದುQ ಎ 5 ಮತು' ಎ 6 ಆ"ೋ-ಗಳX 5ಾb�ಾರ"ಾLರು�ಾ'"ೆ . ಈ ಮೂಲಕ !ೆನ"ಾ �ಾSಂp ಂದ 10 !ೋ9 5ಾಲವನು< ತಮq ಒmೆತನದ ಆ!ಾs ಇtuಾ� mೆವಲಪE& jೆv . ( Oೆಸ;ನ(� ಪmೆದು!ೊಂಡು @ೕಸ ಎಸL ಅಕ�ಮ�ಾಭ ಪmೆ3ರುವaದು ದೃಡಪ9:ರುತ'�ೆ .*

¶159

¶160

ಈ RೕಲAಂಡ ಎ�ಾ� ಆ+'ಗಳX �ಾನS ಸTೕ&ಚV 4ಾSWಾಲಯದ ಆ�ೇಶವನು< ಉಲ�ಂಘ4ೆ �ಾ8 ಆ"ೋ-ಗiೆಲ�ರೂ 5ೇ; ಅಕ�ಮ%ಾL �ಾಭಗ�ಸುವ ಸ�ಾನ ಉ�ೆQೕಶ3ಂದ 4ೋಂದ7 �ಾ8!ೊಂಡು ಅಕ�ಮ �ಾಭಗ�+ ಸದ; ಆ+'ಗ��ೆ ಹೂ8!ೆ �ಾ8ದ ಹೂ8!ೆ�ಾರ;�ೆ ಅpರಮ ನಷ: ಉಂಟು�ಾ8 @ೕಸ �ಾ8ರುವaದು ತ zಾ !ಾಲದ(� ಸಂಗ�K+ದ ಎ�ಾ� 5ಾ{ಾ|Hಾರಗ�ಂದ ದೃಡಪ9:ರುತ'�ೆ .

¶161

ಆದQ;ಂದ, ಆ"ೋ-ಗಳ YರುದZ RೕಲAಂಡ ಕಲಂಗಳ ;ೕತS �ೋ[ಾ"ೋಪ\ಾ ಪ9:.”

¶162

A perusal at the complaint or the summary of the charge sheet as quoted hereinabove, in juxtaposition with the complaint and charge sheet quoted supra concerning Crime No.47 of 2017, would clearly indicate that a second crime has been registered on the same set of facts.

¶163

The RTI activist, the 2^nd respondent does not sit quiet. He seeks to register another crime which is the subject matter of Writ Petition No.21813 of 2023. It becomes germane to notice the complaint in the said case. It reads as follows:

¶164

“From: Dinesh Kallahalli, S/o Ramaiah, Kallahalli Village & Post, Kanakapura Taluk, Ramanagara District.

¶165

¶166

SHO, Police Station, Devanahalli, Bangalore Rural District.

¶167

¶168

Sub: Complaint against accused K.Muniraju, R/o 366, K.M.P. Arcade, Matadahalli, R.T.Nagar Main Road, Bangalore & Shankara Gowda Shivanna Gowdar, B.Nagarajappa and B.S. Manjunath for committing acts of forgery and cheating the general public.

¶169

Sir,

¶170

¶171

The backgrounds facts, in short, are as follows:-

¶172

The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its order dated February 02, 2016, in the matter of PACL Ltd. v. Securities and Exchange Board of India (Civil AppealNo.13394 of 2015) and other connected matters was pleased to constitute a committee under the chairmanship of Hon’ble Mr. Justice (Retd.) R.M. Lodha (Former Chief Justice of India) empowering the committee to take possession of the title deeds of PACL & sell/auction the properties in order to return to the investors/customers of PACL the monies invested by them in PACL Ltd. to the tune of ₹49,000/crores approximately . List of properties to be auctioned includes the property, which is subject matter of the present complaint. Copy enclosed.

¶173

¶174

(i) Not to part with and/or share records/documents of their investments in the schemes of PACL Ltd., with

¶175

¶176

PACL or any other person, till further intimation in this regard by the Committee; and

¶177

(ii) Not to make any new investment or any payment towards installments or otherwise of PACL Ltd., or its officers/agents etc.

¶178

Contrary, to the intent of the said Committee, the accused persons in order to prevent the auction/sale of the following lands, encumbered the same by fraudulently executing sale agreement as power of attorney holder, in relation to Sy.Nos. 40/1, 45/1, 46/2, 59/7, 59/3, 59/10, 56/1, 59/4 of Bychapura Village and Sy.No.7/3, 7/4 of Sanna Amankere Village, Kasaba Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bangalore Rural totally measuring 7 acres and 8 guntas for a sum of ₹3,51,70,000/-. Copy enclosed.

¶179

The fraudulent nature of the deal is evident from the fact that the so-called seller is not the title holder of the PACL Land and the buyer who is teacher has purportedly paid cash as advance. Copy enclosed.

¶180

The above said document is registered with the Sub-Registrar, Devanahalli as Document Nos.10578 in Book-I and stored in CD No.DNHD630 on 23-02-2017.

¶181

¶182

It is accordingly prayed that an FIR be registered in this regard under the relevant sections of forgery and cheating and the matter be investigated.

¶183

Thanking you,

¶184

Sd/- Dinesh Kallahalli, Mob: 9448618338 Date: 21^st April, 2017.”

¶185

¶186

The Police, on the complaint, register a crime in Crime No.46 of 2017. The complaint is verbatim similar. The police after investigation in the case at hand took five years to file a charge sheet and filed one on 22-02-2022 on the same day of filing of charge sheet in Crime No.107 of 2018. The summary of the charge sheet as obtaining in column no.7 in Crime No.46/2017 reads as follows:

¶187

“ - . ಎ . + . ಎ/ ಕಂಪ �ೆ 5ೇ;ದ ಆ+'ಗಳನು< (Anx-3) ಹ"ಾಜು �ಾ8 ಬಂದ ಹಣ3ಂದ - . ಎ . + . ಎ/ ಕಂಪ ?ಂದ @ೕಸ!ೊAಳ�ಾದ ಹೂ8!ೆ�ಾರ;�ೆ ಹಂB!ೆ �ಾಡಲು ಸು-�ೕಂ !ೋD& ನ(� ಜ+:ೕE ( ವೃತ' ) �ಾನS^�ೕ Dgï.JA.¯ÉÆÃzsÁ ಕI9ಯು 34ಾಂಕ :02-02-2016 ರಂದು ಆ�ೇಶ (Anx-2) �ಾ8ರುತ'�ೆ .

¶188

�ೆಂಗಳ�ರು �ಾ��ಾಂತರ f¯Éè �ೇವನಹ�� ಾಲೂ�ಕು , �ೈ`ಾಪaರ �ಾ�ಮದ ಸ%ೇ& £ÀA.45/1(11UÀÄAmÉ), 59/7(12UÀÄAmÉ) ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÀA.59/3 (11 ಗುಂೆ ) ರ(�ನ ಒಟು: ಒಂದು (1) ಎಕ"ೆ ಆರು (6) ಗುಂೆ ಜIೕನನು< !ಾಲಂ ನಂ . 4 ರ(� ನಮೂ3+ರುವ ಎ 1 ಆ"ೋ-ಯು ಎ 10, ಎ11 ಮತು' ಎ 12 ಆ"ೋ-ಗiೆ�ಂ3�ೆ 5ೇ; J7 ಆ"ೋ-�ೆ ¢£ÁAPÀ:17-02-2016 gÀAzÀÄ ¸ÉÃ¯ï rÃqï £ÉÆAzÀtÂ (Anx-4) �ಾ8!ೊ9:ದುQ J13 ಮತು' J14 DgÉÆÃ¦UÀ¼ÀÆ ¸ÁQëzÁgÀgÁVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

¶189

ಈ RೕಲAಂಡ ಎ�ಾ� ಆ+'ಗಳX �ಾನS ಸTೕ&ಚV 4ಾSWಾಲಯದ ಆ�ೇಶವನು< ಉಲ�ಂಘ4ೆ �ಾ8 ಆ"ೋ-ಗiೆಲ�ರೂ 5ೇ; ಅಕ�ಮ%ಾL �ಾಭಗ�ಸುವ ಸ�ಾನ ಉ�ೆQೕಶ3ಂದ 4ೋಂದ7 �ಾ8!ೊಂಡು ಅಕ�ಮ �ಾಭಗ�+ ಸದ; ಆ+'ಗ��ೆ ಹೂ8!ೆ �ಾ8ದ ಹೂ8!ೆ�ಾರ;�ೆ ಅಕ�ಮ ನಷ: ಉಂಟು�ಾ8 @ೕ5ೆ �ಾ8ರುವaದು ತ zಾ !ಾಲದ(� ಸಂಗ�K+ದ ಎ�ಾ� 5ಾ{ಾ|Hಾರಗ�ಂದ ದೃಡಪ9:ರುತ'�ೆ .

¶190

ಆದQ;ಂದ ಆ"ೋ-ಗಳ YರುದZ RೕಲAಂಡ ಕಲಂಗಳ ;ೕತS �ೋ[ಾ"ೋಪ\ಾ ಪ9:”

¶191

(Emphasis added at each instance)

¶192

¶193

Here again the contents are verbatim similar. Therefore, this forms a third crime and the third charge sheet against these petitioners by the very same complainant concerning the very same petitioners/accused. Therefore, it does get hit by the doctrine of sameness as held by the Apex Court in a plethora of judgments. I deem it appropriate to notice the latest judgment of the Apex Court, in the case of RAJENDRA BIHARI LAL vs. STATE OF

¶194

UTTAR PRADESH² , wherein while considering the entire spectrum of the law on this issue it is held as follows:

¶195

“….

¶196

v. Whether multiple FIRs pertaining to the same alleged offence are maintainable?

¶197

95. The earliest information, being the first in point of time, relating to the commission of a cognizable offence and recorded by the officer in charge of a police station, is what sets the investigative machinery in motion and marks the commencement of investigation. This information is commonly referred to as “the FIR”, and it is the only FIR. It is, no doubt, possible that more than one piece of information may be furnished to the police concerning the same incident involving one or multiple cognizable offences.

¶198

96. A plain reading of Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. makes it clear that a police officer is not obliged to record every subsequent piece of information in the station diary as the first information. The expression “second FIR” is a misnomer, for the law does not recognize the registration of more

¶199

2 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2265

¶200

¶201

than one First Information Report in respect of the same offence. Any action taken by the police on information received after the first report forms part of the investigation into the same offence. The investigating agency, in the discharge of its bounden duty, must inquire not only into the cognizable offence disclosed in the first report but also into all connected offences arising from the same transaction or occurrence.

¶202

97. The existence of another FIR stamps an abuse of investigative powers, undermines the fairness of the investigative process, and exposes the accused to unwarranted harassment through repeated investigations into the same offence.Such a practice militates against the procedure that all connected offences arising from the same incident or transaction must be investigated together in a single proceeding. It is for this reason that the law disregards the practice of registering a “second FIR”, save in situations where the test of sameness is inapplicable or a counter-case is being investigated into.In such cases, the High Court, in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, may quash the subsequent FIR to prevent abuse of the process of law.

¶203

98. This Court in T.T. Antony (supra), categorically held that any information furnished to the officer in charge of a police station after the commencement of investigation would constitute a statement covered by Section 162 of the Cr.P.C. No such information, subsequent to the first information, can be treated as an FIR under Section 154 of the Cr.P.C., for that would amount to a “second FIR,” which is impermissible in law. The scheme of the Cr.P.C. only recognizes the first information about a cognizable offence as satisfying the requirements of Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. It was held therein that there can be no fresh investigation on receipt of subsequent information qua the same cognizable offence/same occurrence/incident. The Court, without a scintilla of doubt, was correct in holding that a case arising out of second FIR is a fit case for exercise of power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and/or

¶204

¶205

Article 226 of the Constitution. The relevant paragraphs are as follows:

¶206

“ 18.[…] All other informations made orally or in writing after the commencement of the investigation into the cognizable offence disclosed from the facts mentioned in the first information report and entered in the station house diary by the police officer or such other cognizable offences as may come to his notice during the investigation, will be statements falling under Section 162 CrPC. No such information/statement can properly be treated as an FIR and entered in the station house diary again, as it would in effect be a second FIR and the same cannot be in conformity with the scheme of CrPC. Take a case where an FIR mentions cognizable offence under Section 307 or 326 IPC and the investigating agency learns during the investigation or receives fresh information that the victim died, no fresh FIR under Section 302 IPC need be registered which will be irregular; in such a case alteration of the provision of law in the first FIR is the proper course to adopt. Let us consider a different situation in which H having killed W, his wife, informs the police that she is killed by an unknown person or knowing that W is killed by his mother or sister, H owns up the responsibility and during investigation the truth is detected; it does not require filing of fresh FIR against H — the real offender — who can be arraigned in the report under Section 173(2) or 173(8) CrPC, as the case may be. It is of course permissible for the investigating officer to send up a report to the Magistrate concerned even earlier that investigation is being directed against the person suspected to be the accused .

¶207

xxx

¶208

20. From the above discussion it follows that under the scheme of the provisions of Sections 154, 155, 156, 157, 162, 169, 170 and 173 C rPC only the earliest or the first information in regard to the commission of a cognizable offence satisfies the requirements of Section 154 CrPC. Thus 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 the same occurrence or incident giving rise to one or more cognizable offences. On receipt of

¶209

¶210

information about a 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 CrPC .

¶211

xxx

¶212

27. A just balance between the fundamental rights of the citizens under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution and the expansive power of the police to investigate a cognizable offence has to be struck by the court. There cannot be any controversy that sub-section (8) of Section 173 CrPC empowers the police to make further investigation, obtain further evidence (both oral and documentary) and forward a further report or reports to the Magistrate. In Narang case [(1979) 2 SCC 322 : 1979 SCC (Cri) 479] it was, however, observed that it would be appropriate to conduct further investigation with the permission of the court. However, the sweeping power of investigation does not warrant subjecting a citizen each time to fresh investigation by the police in respect of the same incident, giving rise to one or more cognizable offences, consequent upon filing of successive FIRs whether before or after filing the final report under Section 173(2) CrPC. It would clearly be beyond the purview of Sections 154 and 156 CrPC, nay, a case of abuse of the statutory power of investigation in a given case. In our view a case of fresh investigation based on the second or successive FIRs, not being a counter-case, filed in connection with the same or connected cognizable offence alleged to have been committed in the course of the same transaction and in respect of which pursuant to the first FIR either investigation is under way or final report under Section 173(2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate, may be a fit case for exercise of power under Section 482 CrPC or under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution .”

¶213

(Emphasis supplied)

¶214

¶215

99. In Babubhai (supra), this Court laid down the “test of sameness” to determine whether a second FIR pertains to the very same incident or constitutes different parts of the same transaction. It held that if the answer is in the affirmative, the second FIR ought to be quashed. However, where the subsequent information discloses a distinct offence or version or sets up a counterclaim, the investigating agency is not precluded from proceeding thereon. The relevant observations read thus:—

¶216

“ 20. Thus, in view of the above, the law on the subject emerges to the effect that an FIR under Section 154 CrPC is a very important document. It is the first information of a cognizable offence recorded by the officer in charge of the police station. It sets the machinery of criminal law in motion and marks the commencement of the investigation which ends with the formation of an opinion under Section 169 or 170 CrPC, as the case may be, and forwarding of a police report under Section 173 CrPC. Thus, it is quite possible that more than one piece of information be given to the police officer in charge of the police station in respect of the same incident involving one or more than one cognizable offences. In such a case, he need not enter each piece of information in the diary. All other information given orally or in writing after the commencement of the investigation into the facts mentioned in the first information report will be statements falling under Section 162 CrPC.

¶217

21 . In such a case the court has to examine the facts and circumstances giving rise to both the FIRs and the test of sameness is to be applied to find out whether both the FIRs relate to the same incident in respect of the same occurrence or are in regard to the incidents which are two or more parts of the same transaction. If the answer is in the affirmative, the second FIR is liable to be quashed. However, in case, the contrary is proved, where the version in the second FIR is different and they are in respect of the two different incidents/crimes, the second FIR is permissible. In case in respect of the same incident the accused in the first FIR comes forward with a different version or counterclaim, investigation on both the FIRs has to be conducted .”

¶218

(Emphasis supplied)

¶219

¶220

100. This Court again reiterated that there cannot be more than one FIR for the same offence in Anju Chaudhary v. State of U.P. , (2013) 6 SCC 384. It permitted registration of an FIR when the incident is found to be separate; offences are similar or different, or where the subsequent crime is of such magnitude that it does not fall within the scope of the FIR recorded first. The Court held that the right to investigate flows from the Cr.P.C., and the power of reinvestigation or de novo investigation is beyond the competence of the investigating agency. The “test of sameness” introduced in Babubhai (supra) was affirmed to ascertain whether both the FIRs relate to the same incident and same occurrence. The relevant observation reads thus:—

¶221

“ 14. On the plain construction of the language and scheme of Sections 154, 156 and 190 of the Code, it cannot be construed or suggested that there can be more than one FIR about an occurrence. However, the opening words of Section 154 suggest that every information relating to commission of a cognizable offence shall be reduced into writing by the officer-in-charge of a police station. This implies that there has to be the first information report about an incident which constitutes a cognizable offence. The purpose of registering an FIR is to set the machinery of criminal investigation into motion, which culminates with filing of the police report in terms of Section 173(2) of the Code. It will, thus, be appropriate to follow the settled principle that there cannot be two FIRs registered for the same offence. However, where the incident is separate; offences are similar or different, or even where the subsequent crime is of such magnitude that it does not fall within the ambit and scope of the FIR recorded first, then a second FIR could be registered. The most important aspect is to examine the inbuilt safeguards provided by the legislature in the very language of Section 154 of the Code. These safeguards can be safely deduced from the principle akin to double jeopardy, rule of fair investigation and further to prevent abuse of power by the investigating authority of the police. Therefore, second FIR for the same incident cannot be registered. […] More so, in the backdrop of the settled canons of criminal jurisprudence, reinvestigation or de novo

¶222

¶223

investigation is beyond the competence of not only the investigating agency but even that of the learned Magistrate. The courts have taken this view primarily for the reason that it would be opposed to the scheme of the Code and more particularly Section 167(2) of the Code. (Ref. Reeta Nag v. State of W.B. [(2009) 9 SCC 129 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 1051] and Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali [(2013) 5 SCC 762] of the same date.) ”

¶224

xxx

¶225

25. The first information report is a very important document, besides that it sets the machinery of criminal law in motion. It is a very material document on which the entire case of the prosecution is built. Upon registration of FIR, beginning of investigation in a case, collection of evidence during investigation and formation of the final opinion is the sequence which results in filing of a report under Section 173 of the Code. The possibility that more than one piece of information is given to the police officerin-charge of a police station, in respect of the same incident involving one or more than one cognizable offences, cannot be ruled out. Other materials and information given to or received otherwise by the investigating officer would be statements covered under Section 162 of the Code. The court in order to examine the impact of one or more FIRs has to rationalise the facts and circumstances of each case and then apply the test of “sameness” to find out whether both FIRs relate to the same incident and to the same occurrence, are in regard to incidents which are two or more parts of the same transaction or relate completely to two distinct occurrences. If the answer falls in the first category, the second FIR may be liable to be quashed. However, in case the contrary is proved, whether the version of the second FIR is different and they are in respect of two different incidents/crimes, the second FIR is permissible, this is the view expressed by this Court in Babubhai v. State of Gujarat [(2010) 12 SCC 254 : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 336]. This judgment clearly spells out the distinction between two FIRs relating to the same incident and two FIRs relating to different incidents or occurrences of the same incident, etc . ”

¶226

(Emphasis supplied)

¶227

¶228

101. This Court in Arnab Ranjan Goswami (supra), again, had the occasion to hold that any information relating to the same cognizable offence, the same occurrence, or the incident giving rise to one or more cognizable offences, cannot be treated as a fresh first information report and is barred. Except in cases where the test of sameness is inapplicable or where a countercase arises, registration of a subsequent FIR would amount to an abuse of the investigative process and would warrant the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The relevant observations read thus:—

¶229

“ 31. The Court held that “there can be no second FIR” where the information concerns the same cognizable offence alleged in the first FIR or the same occurrence or incident which gives rise to one or more cognizable offences. This is due to the fact that the investigation covers within its ambit not just the alleged cognizable offence, but also any other connected offences that may be found to have been committed. This Court held that once an FIR postulated by the provisions of Section 154 has been recorded, any information received after the commencement of investigation cannot form the basis of a second FIR as doing so would fail to comport with the scheme of the CrPC . The Court observed : (T.T. Antony case [T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC 181 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 1048], SCC p. 196, para 18)

¶230

“18. … All other information made orally or in writing after the commencement of the investigation into the cognizable offence disclosed from the facts mentioned in the first information report and entered in the station house diary by the police officer or such other cognizable offences as may come to his notice during the investigation, will be statements falling under Section 162 CrPC. No such information/statement can properly be treated as an FIR and entered in the station house diary again, as it would in effect be a second FIR and the same cannot be in conformity with the scheme of CrPC.”

¶231

xxx

¶232

¶233

33. The Court held that barring situations in which a counter-case is filed, a fresh investigation or a second FIR on the basis of the same or connected cognizable offence would constitute an “abuse of the statutory power of investigation” and may be a fit case for the exercise of power either under Section 482 CrPC or Articles 226/227 of the Constitution .”

¶234

(Emphasis supplied)

¶235

102. Recently, in State of Rajasthan v. Surendra Singh Rathore , 2025 SCC OnLine SC 358, Sanjay Karol, J., upon referring to the earlier decisions of this Court, laid down the principles regarding the permissibility of the registration of a second FIR. The relevant paragraphs have been reproduced hereinbelow:—

¶236

“ 9. From the above conspectus of judgments, inter alia, the following principles emerge regarding the permissibility of the registration of a second FIR:

¶237

9.1 When the second FIR is counter-complaint or presents a rival version of a set of facts, in reference to which an earlier FIR already stands registered.

¶238

9.2 When the ambit of the two FIRs is different even though they may arise from the same set of circumstances .

¶239

9.3 When investigation and/or other avenues reveal the earlier FIR or set of facts to be part of a larger conspiracy .

¶240

9.4 When investigation and/or persons related to the incident bring to the light hitherto unknown facts or circumstances .

¶241

9.5 Where the incident is separate; offences are similar or different .”

(Emphasis supplied)”

(Emphasis supplied)

If the law that is laid down by the Apex Court in the afore-extracted judgment is considered, what would unmistakably emerge is, registration of second FIR on the same incident would be hit by the “doctrine of sameness” and will have to be annihilated, as it would amount to improving the facts and the case in the subsequent complaint on the same incident.

¶246

On the bedrock of the principles laid down by the Apex Court if the afore-narrated contents are noticed, it becomes unmistakably clear that the crimes so registered are hit by the doctrine of sameness. The other contentions need not be gone into, as the crimes so registered are obliterable solely on the score of doctrine of sameness, as held by the Apex Court in the aforequoted judgment.

¶247

For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶248

O R D E R

¶249

(i) Writ Petitions are allowed.

¶250

¶251

(ii) The proceedings in C.C.No.3907 of 2021, C.C.No.4711 of 2022 and C.C.No.4716 of 2022 pending before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli concerning Crime No. 47 of 2017; Crime No.107 of 2018 and Crime No.46 of 2017 respectively stand quashed.

¶252

(iii) It is made clear that quashment of these crimes will not come in the way of any identical crimes registered and being investigated or charge sheet filed and being tried against these petitioners.

¶253

Consequently, pending applications if any also stand

¶254

disposed.

¶255

Sd/(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

¶256

bkp CT:MJ

Smt Pushpa v. State by Devanahalli Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Pushpa v. State by Devanahalli Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ratnakar Manja Poojari Vs State of Karnataka

Nagaraja G Vs State by

Sri Nagegowda M R Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Hemant Aggarwal Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Subham Jobanputra Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Venugopal B C Vs the State of Karnataka