Allowed

Rakesh Mehandiratta (Arroa) v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC22 Jul 2024CRLMP/7338/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal miscellaneous petition sought quashing of an FIR registered on the same allegations as four earlier FIRs that resulted in negative final reports. The High Court, exercising powers under Section 482 CrPC, held that registering a fresh FIR for the same incident constituted abuse of process and prior judgment. The petition was allowed, FIR quashed, though further investigation remains p

What did the court decide?

FIR No.245/2018 dated 29.08.2018 registered at Police Station ACB, Hanumangarh is quashed and set aside.

Rakesh Mehandiratta (Arroa) Vs State of Rajasthan — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:23396]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 7338/2022

¶4

Rakesh Mehandiratta (Arora) S/o Shri Devi Dutta, Aged About 57 Years, R/o Surya Nagar, Street No. 1, Ward No. 26, Hanumangarh Town, Hanumangarh (Raj.)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

Surendra Kumar Gandhi S/o Shyopat Ram, R/o Ward No. 17, Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh (Raj.)

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pradeep Kumar Shah For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Rajpurohit, PP Mr. Jeetender Singh Khichi for Complainant

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

¶12

Order

¶13

22/07/2024

¶14

By way of filing the present criminal misc petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:

¶15

“It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Criminal Misc. Petition may kindly be allowed and the F.I.R. No. 245/2018 registered at Police Station, ACB, Hanumangarh, Central Police Station and further proceedings in pursuant thereof, may kindly be quashed and set-aside.”

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the prosecution, the complainant – Surendra Kumar had filed a written complaint dated 20.10.2014 before Anti Corruption Bureau, Hanumangarh with 33 allegations for the period in which the petitioner was holding the post of Executive Officer, Nagar Palika, Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh. In the written complaint it was

[2024:RJ-JD:23396]

[CRLMP-7338/2022]

(2 of 8)

stated that the petitioner while holding the post of Executive Officer, Nagar Palika at Pilibanga, with the collusion of the property dealers, issued commercial and residential patta in utter disregard to the applicable laws and thereby caused huge financial losses to the Nagar Palika for his personal gains.

¶21

Learned counsel submitted that the impugned FIR No.245/2018 dated 29.08.2018 has been lodged against the present petitioner for the offences under Sections 13(1)(c)(d) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 467, 468, 471, 409 and 120-B of the IPC, specifically for four allegations which were levelled against the petitioner by the complainant in his written complaint dated 20.10.2014. Drawing attention of the Court towards the impugned FIR No.245/2018 and the averments, made therein, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that for the same set of allegations, different FIR Nos.407/2014, 408/2014, 598/2015, 672/2014 and 661/2014 were lodged against the present petitioner and in each of them, after making a thorough investigation, negative Final Reports were submitted by the concerned Investigating Officers.

¶22

Learned counsel further submitted that two or more FIRs are not maintainable on the same set of facts & allegations and the petitioner legally cannot be prosecuted twice, particularly when the negative Final Reports submitted by the Investigating Officers have already been accepted by the competent criminal court. Learned counsel vehemently submitted that the impugned FIR was lodged with an ulterior motive, knowing fully well that in earlier FIRs, the Investigating Agency has already submitted negative Final Reports, hence the impugned FIR is nothing but an abuse of

(3 of 8)

[2024:RJ-JD:23396]

[CRLMP-7338/2022]

process of law at the hands of the complainant, and therefore, the same deserves to quashed and set-aside.

¶27

Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the registration of the second FIR by Anti Corruption Bureau, District Hanumangarh on the basis of the written complaint submitted by the complainant, on same set of facts is illegal and not justified. It was submitted that the fresh investigation by the investigating agency without there being any change in the facts or circumstances is absolutely unwarranted and illegal. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the following judgments:

¶28

T.T. Anthony Vs. State of Kerala reported in (2001) 6 SCC 181.

¶29

Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah Vs. The Central Bureau of

¶30

Investigation & Anr. reported in [2014] 1 SCC(Cri.) 309. 6. Per Contra , learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel of the complainant have opposed the prayed made in the present misc. petition. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner are bereft of any substance; he argued that as far as the investigation against the petitioner in connection with impugned FIR is concerned, the same can be done even after a negative Final Report has been accepted by the competent criminal court in the previous FIR(s). The power to conduct investigation by the Investigating Agency cannot be restricted, looking to the nature of the allegations levelled against the present petitioner, as the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation may be able to collect incriminating

[2024:RJ-JD:23396]

[CRLMP-7338/2022]

(4 of 8)

material to establish involvement of present petitioner in commission of the alleged crime.

¶35

Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently submitted that it is too premature for the Court to predict/infer, at this stage, that the Investigating Officer would not be able to collect any material against the petitioner. That is an area which should not be encroached by the Court and the investigating agency/officer shall be at liberty to make a fair and transparent investigation in the matter.

¶36

Lastly, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that merely because on an earlier occasion, a negative Final Report was submitted by the Investigating Officers, that would not mean that the Court should stand in the way of investigation/further investigation if that would help in bringing out the truth and do real, substantial as well as effective justice.

¶37

On these grounds learned Public Prosecutor prayed that the present misc. petition may be dismissed. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties at Bar. Perused the material available on record.

¶38

In the case of T.T. Anthony Vs. State of Kerala reported in (2001) 6 SCC 181, Hon’ble the Supreme Court was pleased to hold as under:

¶39

“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 Cr.P.C. empowers the police to make further investigation, obtain further evidence (both oral and documentary) and forward report or reports to the Magistrate. In Narang’s case (supra) it was, however, observed that it would be appropriate to conduct

(5 of 8)

[2024:RJ-JD:23396]

[CRLMP-7338/2022]

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 154 and 156 Cr.P.C; 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 underway 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 Cr.P.C. or under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution.”

¶44

In the case of Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah Vs. The Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. reported in [2014] 1 SCC(Cri.) 309, Hon’ble the Supreme Court has held that for the offences in respect of an FIR which had already been filed and the Court has taken cognizance, the filing of second FIR and fresh charge-sheet is violative of fundamental rights under Articles 14, 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶45

On a close scrutiny of the material available on record, this Court finds that the impugned FIR No.245/2018 dated 29.08.2018 has been lodged in respect of points No.13, 14, 23 and 24 of the complaint dated 20.10.2024 submitted by the complainant before Anti Corruption Bureau, District Hanumangarh.

¶46

The first allegation (point No.13) of the impugned FIR relates to issuance of a commercial and a residential patta in favour of one Sita Ram S/o Bhadar Ram by the Nagar Palika, Pilibanga whereas as per the rules, there cannot be allotment of two lands in favour of one and the same person. This Court finds that for the

[2024:RJ-JD:23396]

[CRLMP-7338/2022]

(6 of 8)

very same allegation, an FIR No.407/2014 was lodged at Police Station Pilibanga and after a thorough investigation, the Investigating Agency submitted a negative Final Report No.160/2017 before the competent criminal court on 31.10.2017 and the same has been accepted by the Court.

¶51

The second allegation (point No.14) levelled in the impugned FIR relates to allotment and issuance of patta of a commercial land in favour of one Ashok Kumar S/o Sita Ram, and as per the impugned FIR, the land has been allotted to him only on payment of Rs.9,00,000/- whereas, the market value/price of the land is more than Rs.1.50 Crores. Further, the allotment has been made by manipulating signatures of the members of the empowered committee of Nagar Palika, Pilibanga, in utter violation of the orders passed by Hon’ble High Court in Writ Petition No.789/2006 (Baltej Singh and Ors. Vs. State). The record of the case shows that for this very allegation, FIR No.408/2014 was lodged and the same was investigated by the CID, CB. Also, a separate complaint was investigated under Section 202 Cr.P.C and the police authority submitted a negative Final Report before the competent criminal court. It is pertinent to note here that the allegations were also inquired into by the learned District Collector and the Local Self Government wherein, no irregularities were found to have been committed by the petitioner.

¶52

The third allegation (point No.23) levelled in the impugned FIR relates to the regularization of a plot ad-measuring 90*180 sq. foot. in favour of one Munshi Ram S/o Gyan Chand, on payment of Rs.26,06,411/- whereas, Munshi Ram is a person holding ‘BPL’ Card. Further, immediately after allotment, the land

[2024:RJ-JD:23396]

[CRLMP-7338/2022]

(7 of 8)

was sold by him to one Vijay Kumar, Amit Saini and Vinod Kumar. It is to be noticed that an FIR No.672/2014 dated 24.11.2014 was lodged at Police Station Pilibanga, for the very same offences and the Police Authorities after making a thorough investigation, submitted a negative Final Report No.54/2015 before the competent criminal court and the same has been accepted.

¶57

The fourth allegation (point No.24) levelled in the impugned FIR relates to the issuance of patta of a land ad-measuring 150*90 sq. yards. in favour of Geeta W/o Chotu Ram in contravention of the rules relating to land allotment in the Nagar Palika. An FIR No.661/2014 was lodged at Police Station Pilibanga for these very offences and the Investigating Agency after conducting a thorough investigation, has submitted a negative Final Report No.55/2015 before the competent criminal court which has already been accepted. 15. It thus, seen that all the allegations in relation to which the present FIR No.245/2018 has been lodged, the investigation was thoroughly done by the Police Authorities and it was found that no offence has been committed by the petitioner. It is interesting to note here that before registering the impugned FIR, the Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) made a preliminary investigation and reached to the conclusion that out of 33 points raised in the written complaint dated 20.10.2014 submitted by the complainant, only on point No.13, 14, 23 and 24, an FIR could be lodged. Though, for the same set of allegations, the negative Final Report(s) were earlier submitted by the Investigating Agency.

¶58

In the opinion of this Court, the registration of the impugned FIR No.245/2018 dated 29.08.2018 is contrary to the settled

(8 of 8)

[2024:RJ-JD:23396]

[CRLMP-7338/2022]

principles of law and the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of T.T. Anthony (supra) . However, it is always open for the Investigating Agency to form a different opinion under Section 169/170 of Cr.P.C., after making further investigation in the matter, if the evidence obtained by it supports such a conclusion.

¶63

Consequently, the present criminal misc. petition is allowed. The FIR No.245/2018 dated 29.08.2018 lodged at Police Station ACB, Hanumangarh, Central Police Station, ACB, District Jaipur is hereby quashed and set aside. However, it is made clear that this will not preclude the Investigating Agency from seeking leave of the competent criminal court in FIR Nos.407/2014, 672/2014 and 661/2014 for making further investigation therein and filing supplementary reports after making further investigation under Sections 173 (8) Cr.P.C.

¶64

Stay petition stands dismissed.

¶65

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J

¶66

28-himanshu/-

Rakesh Mehandiratta (Arroa) v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh Mehandiratta (Arroa) v. State of Rajasthan

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

The New Indian Insurance Company Limited Vs Vidhya

Lal Chand Kaswan Vs State of Rajasthan

Rahul Vs State of Rajasthan

Bhanwaralal Bugalia Vs Shankarlal

Prithvi Singh @ Prithvi Raj Vs State of Rajasthan

Gautam Vs State of Rajasthan