At a premature stage of a case where investigation process is still going it is not fit to exercise powers under section 482 of Cr.P.C

Yugashree | School of Law Sastra University, Thanjavur | 30th March 2020

L C Nagaraja Vs The state by CBI

Facts:

The petitioner who is working with government as an Assistant Commissioner of Revenue dept North Division of Bangalore was competent authority under the provisions of Karnataka Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act, 2004.As per the said directions of the relevant authority he issued directions to all police officers Tahsildars for the purpose verification about the complaints registered and irregularities regarding the financial transactions by the I-MA company. 

                           In that regard DCP sent a letter to the petitioner that he should examine the situation and send a report to Government. Subsequently the government withdrew the order of appointment given to him. As the government withdrawn its order his competency is also waived but the petitioner he gave a report to the principal secretary to government about the assignment given to him that the company has not received any deposits and it has only received by way of capitals and no action can be taken against the said company.

                             The petitioner who doesn’t have any authority in this regard but the case has been case also petitioner and the other accused persons under the P.C. Act alleging that during his tenure, the petitioner – accused No.2 had received illegal gratification from I-MA Company and given a favourable report in favour of the Company to the Government, despite the Company involved in illegal activities. The said case was transferred to C.B.I. for investigation and it was re-registered for the offences punishable under Section 7, 7A, 8 and 12 of the P.C. Act.

                               Being aggrieved by this the petitioner appeared before the court. It was submitted before the court that the respondent has already registered two different cases on the petitioner and the registration of present case is wholly illegal and it is hit by the principle of Double Jeopardy under Article 20 of the constitution of India as well as section 173(8) of Cr.P.C.

                                 As it is arising out of the same transaction, same facts and continuance of offence and it cannot be bifurcated and it is also submitted before the court that the registration of multiple cases against the case is nothing but harassment of petitioner. It will cause inconvenience to the accused as there will be two trials the accused has to face. The report submitted by the petitioner which is contended by the prosecution is not false report. The registration of second FIR against the petitioner under section 154 of the Cr.P.C is invalid and cannot investigate the case further.

                                 Filing a fresh charge sheet for the same and continuing offence is against the provisions of Cr.P.C and it is a procedural irregularity. There can be no second FIR and only the 1^st FIR under section 154 of Cr.P.C only be satisfied. Both the offences under IPC and prevention of corruption act can be tried together is the plea made by petitioner ad there will be no prejudice in prosecution.  

                                   Whereas the respondent argued that the powers given to the petitioner under section 5 of the act in which he was appointed has been subsequently withdrawn and he has no powers to submit any reports and the cases which were registered separately. The petitioner for submitting a false report about the company has received a huge amount and the case has an economic impact over the society and the petitioner has no good grounds to quash the proceedings. It is also submitted that only in exceptional cases 2^nd FIR would lie and if a larger conspiracy which was not part of the first F.I.R is disclosed during the investigation second FIR can lay.  

                                     when second investigation has been started independently which discloses wide range of offences and if second final report has been submitted the accused concerned can take necessary steps to club two cases together and trial can be held at one place and the trial can be concluded in this behalf and based on these grounds the respondent prayed to dismiss the case.

Court’s Observation and decision:

                                       The court closely read and observed upon article 20 of the constitution of India and said that at this premature stage, the principles of double jeopardy is not applicable since both the F.I.R. are at investigation stage and the same are monitored by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court and the contentions of the petitioner in this regard were rejected. In the light of the by the court with both the learned counsels, the petition being devoid of merits, is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.