Karnataka High Court
Sri. K. Muniraju vs State Of Karnataka on 21 February, 2026
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION No.19757 OF 2023 (GM - RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO.19792 OF 2023 (GM - RES)
WRIT PETITION NO.21813 OF 2023 (GM - RES)
IN WRIT PETITION NO.19757 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
1 . SMT.PUSHPA
W/O MUNIRAJU
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 2231/1, 'D' BLOCK,
NEAR WATER TANK,
SHANKARANAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 092.
2 . K.MUNIRAJU
S/O KEMPANNA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 2231/1, 'D' BLOCK,
NEAR WATER TANK,
SHANKARANAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 092.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI BIPIN HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
2
AND:
1 . STATE BY DEVANAHALLI POLICE
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2 . SRI DINESH KALLAHALLI
S/O RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/O KALLALLI VILLAGE AND POST,
KANAKPURA TALUK,
RAMANAGAR DISTRICT - 562 117.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.SOWMYA R., HCGP FOR R-1;
SRI ASHWIN VAISH, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
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.
3
IN WRIT PETITION NO.19792 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
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.
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.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI BIPIN HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH DEVANAHALLI POLICE,
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2 . SRI DINESH KALLAHALLI
S/O RAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/O KALLALLI VILLAGE AND POST,
KANAKPURA TALUK,
RAMANAGAR DISTRICT - 562 117.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.SOWMYA R., HCGP FOR R-1;
4
SRI ASHWIN VAISH, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
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.
IN WRIT PETITION NO.21813 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
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.
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.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI BIPIN HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
5
AND:
1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH DEVANAHALLI POLICE
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2 . SRI DINESH KALLAHALLI
S/O RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
R/O KALLALLI VILLAGE AND POST,
KANAKPURA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 117.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.SOWMYA R., HCGP FOR R-1;
SRI ASHWIN VAISH, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
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.
THESES WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
6
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CAV ORDER
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.
2. Heard in these petitions Sri Bipin Hegde, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners, Smt. R. Sowmya, learned High Court
7
Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri Ashwin
Vaish, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.
3. 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:
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 2nd 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
8
Prateek Kumar. The said Prateek Kumar in turn executes a GPA and
an agreement of sale in favour of the 2nd 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.
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
9
Village, Kasaba Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bangalore Rural District
for a sum of ₹1,71,00,000/- through registered sale deeds. The 2nd
respondent then registers a complaint against the petitioners and
three other accused before the 1st 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.
4. 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
10
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 2nd 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.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd
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
11
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.
6. The learned High Court Government Pleader would also toe
the lines of the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd
respondent/complainant in seeking dismissal of the petition.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions
made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the
material on record.
8. 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
INDIA1, has passed the following order:
"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
1
Civil Appeal No.13301 of 2015 and connected cases order dated
02-02-2016
12
appearing on behalf of Securities & Exchange Board of India
(SEBI), on caveat.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
13
Title Deeds, which will be handed over to it for Court
proceedings.
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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. The decision with regard to sale of property of the
Company by the Committee shall not be interfered with by any
Court.
14
14. List the matters on 2nd August, 2016 as Part-heard,
so as to know the progress."
(Emphasis supplied)
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 2nd respondent. The 2nd 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:
"From:
Dinesh Kallahalli,
S/o Ramaiah, Kallahalli Village & Post,
Kanakapura Taluk, Ramanagara District.
To
SHO, Police Station, Devanahalli,
Bangalore Rural District.
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
15
committing acts of forgery and cheating the general
public.
Sir,
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 23-
02-2017 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.
The backgrounds facts, in short, are as follows:-
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.
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:-
(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
16
(ii) Not to make any new investment or any payment
towards installments or otherwise of PACL Ltd., or its
officers/agents etc.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Thanking you,
Sd/- Dinesh Kallahalli, Mob: 9448618338
Date: 21st April, 2017."
The complaint, as observed, is by an RTI activist who is said to be
having avowed objectives of exposing criminal activities of several
17
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:
" ೆಂಗಳ ರು ಾ ಾಂತರ ೆ ೇವನಹ ಾಲೂಕು,
ಾಲೂಕು ಸಣಅ ಾ !ೆ"ೆ ಾ ಮದ ಸ%ೇ&
ನಂ.192
ನಂ ಮತು' ಸ%ೇ& ನಂ.
ನಂ 51/2 ರ(ನ 4 ಎಕ"ೆ 4 ಗುಂ*ೆ !ಾಲಂ ನಂ.
ನಂ 4 ರ( ನಮೂ+ರುವ ಎ2
ಆ"ೋ-ಯು -.ಎ
ಎ.+
+.ಎ/
ಎ/ ಕಂಪ ಯ ಪ 1 2 ೆ 34ಾಂಕ:02-07-2010
34ಾಂಕ ರಂದು 5ೇ/ rÃqï
4ೋಂದ7 ಾ8!ೊ9:ರು ಾ'"ೆ.ೆ ನಂತರ -.ಎ
ಎ.+
+.ಎ/
ಎ/ ಕಂಪ ೆ 5ೇ;ದ ಆ+'ಗಳನು< ಹ"ಾಜು ಾ8
ಬಂದ ಹಣ3ಂದ -.ಎ
ಎ.+
+.ಎ/
ಎ/ ಕಂಪ ?ಂದ @ೕಸ!ೊAಳ ಾದ ಹೂ8!ೆ ಾರ; ೆ ಹಂB!ೆ ಾಡಲು
ಸು- ೕಂ !ೋD&
!ೋD&ನ(
D&ನ( ಜ+:ೕE ( ವೃತ') ಆG.ಎಂ
ಆG ಎಂ.
ಎಂ ೋHಾ ಕI9ಯು 34ಾಂಕ:02-02-2016
34ಾಂಕ ರಂದು
ಆ ೇಶ ಾ8ರುತ' ೆ.ೆ KೕLರು%ಾ ೆM !ಾಲಂ ನಂ.4
ನಂ ರ( ನಮೂ3+ರುವ J1 ಆ"ೋ-ಯು J4
ಆ"ೋ-Nಂ3 ೆ 5ೇ; ಸ%ೇ& ನಂ.192
ನಂ ರ(ನ 2 ಎಕ"ೆ 39 ಗುಂ*ೆ ಜIೕನನು< 34ಾಂಕ:11-09-
34ಾಂಕ
2015 ರಂದು ತನ< Oೆಸ; ೆ 5ೇ/ 8ೕP 4ೊಂದ7
4ೊಂದ7 ಾ8+!ೊಂ8ದುQ, ನಂತರ ಸದ; ಸ%ೇ& ನಂ.192
ನಂ
ಜIೕನನು< 34ಾಂಕ 23-02-2017 ರಂದು ಎ3 ಆ"ೋ- ೆ 5ೇ/ ಅVæRಂD
RಂDUÉ J3 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ J5
DgÉÆæUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÁQëzÁgÀgÁVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
18
ಾನS ಸTೕ&ಚV 4ಾSWಾಲಯದ ಆ ೇಶವನು< Iೕ; ಆ"ೋ-ಗಳX -.ಎ
ಎ.+
+.ಎ/
ಎ//
ಎ/
ಕಂಪ ೆ 5ೇ;ದ ಸಣ ಅ ಾ !ೆ"ೆ ಾ ಮದ ಸ%ೇ& ನಂ. ನಂ 192 ರ(ನ 2 KPÀgÉ 39 UÀÄAmÉ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß
DgÉÆæUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÉÃj ¸Éïï CVæªÉÄAmï ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ DgÉÆæUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÉÆøÀ J¸ÀVgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ
ಕಂಡುಬಂ3ರುತ' ೆ.ೆ
ಆದQ;ಂದ ಆ"ೋ-ಗಳ YರುದZ ªÉÄîÌAqÀ ೋ[ಾ"ೋಪ\ೆ ಪ9: ಸ(+ರುತ' ೆ."
Before embarking upon consideration of the subject challenge, it
becomes necessary to notice the action of the complainant in
registering crimes after crimes.
9. 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:
"To
The SHO, Police Station,
R.T.Nagar Main Road,
Bangalore.
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.
Sir,
19
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.
The present crime arises out of separate set of facts which are
as follows:-
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.
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.
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.
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,
20
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.
Interestingly, the said property has been further sold to
somebody else.
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.
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.
Sd/- Dinesh Kallahalli, RTI Activist
S/o Ramaiah, Kallahalli Village & Post,
Kanakapura Taluk, Ramanagara District
Mobile: 9448618338
Date: 22nd May 2017."
The complaint is verbatim similar. R.T.Nagar police have registered
a crime initially in Crime No.153 of 2017 and the same was
transferred to the 1st respondent-Police and registered as Crime
No.107 of 2018 for offences punishable under Sections 468, 471,
21
420 read with 34 of the IPC. Again, the 1st 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:
"-.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' ೆ.
ೆಂಗಳ ರು ಾ ಾಂತರ ೆ ೇವನಹ ಾಲೂಕು, ಸಣ ಾ !ೆ"ೆ ಾ ಮದ ಸ%ೆ& ನಂ.
192(2.39 UÀÄAmÉ) Oಾಗೂ ೈ`ಾಪaರ ಾ ಮದ ಸ%ೇ& ನಂ. 51/2(1.17 UÀÄAmÉ) d«ÄãÀ£ÄÀ ß
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 ಾ'"ೆ.
£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£Éà 5ೇ/ 8ೕP (Anx-10) 4ೋಂದ7 ಾ8!ೊಂ8ರು ಾ'"ೆ.
-.ಎ
ಎ.+
+.ಎ/
ಎ/ ಸeತು'ಗಳ ಪ9:ಯ( RೕಲAಂಡ ಸ%ೆ& ನಂಬರುಗಳX ಇರುವaದು ೊ1'ದರ
Q ೂ ಸಹ
ಾನS ಸTೕ&ಚV 4ಾSWಾಲಯದ ಆ ೇಶವನು< ಉಲಂh+ RೕಲAಂಡ ಸ%ೆ& ನಂಬರುಗiೆ ಂ3 ೆ ಇತ"ೆ
ಸ%ೆ& ನಂಬರುಗಳನು< 5ೇ;+!ೊಂಡು ವಂಚ4ೆ ಾಡುವ ಸ ಾನ ಉ ೆQೕಶ3ಂದ ಅjಾ ಾ7ಕ%ಾL ಎl
ಆ"ೋ-ಯು ಎ2 ಆ"ೋ- ೆ 34ಾಂಕ:17-02-2016
34ಾಂಕ ರಂದು Lk: 8ೕP (Anx-11)
ಾ8!ೊ9:ರು ಾ'"ೆ.
"ೆ ನಂತರ ಎ2 ಆ"ೋ-ಯು ಸದ; ಜIೕ ನ ಾಖ ಾ1ಗಳ ಆHಾರ R@ರಂಡl
"ೆ
ಆk mೆjಾ+D *ೈಟ/ 8ೕPn(Anx-12)
8ೕPn ಾ8ದುQ ಎ5 ಮತು' ಎ6 ಆ"ೋ-ಗಳX
5ಾb ಾರ"ಾLರು ಾ'"ೆ.ೆ ಈ ಮೂಲಕ !ೆನ"ಾ ಾSಂp ಂದ 10 !ೋ9 5ಾಲವನು< ತಮq ಒmೆತನದ
ಆ!ಾs ಇtuಾ
ಇtuಾ mೆವಲಪE& jೆv.(
jೆv ( Oೆಸ;ನ( ಪmೆದು!ೊಂಡು @ೕಸ ಎಸL ಅಕ ಮ ಾಭ
ಪmೆ3ರುವaದು ದೃಡಪ9:ರುತ' ೆ.ೆ
22
ಈ RೕಲAಂಡ ಎ ಾ ಆ+'ಗಳX ಾನS ಸTೕ&ಚV 4ಾSWಾಲಯದ ಆ ೇಶವನು< ಉಲಂಘ4ೆ
ಾ8 ಆ"ೋ-ಗiೆಲರೂ 5ೇ; ಅಕ ಮ%ಾL ಾಭಗ ಸುವ ಸ ಾನ ಉ ೆQೕಶ3ಂದ 4ೋಂದ7
ಾ8!ೊಂಡು ಅಕ ಮ ಾಭಗ + ಸದ; ಆ+'ಗ ೆ ಹೂ8!ೆ ಾ8ದ ಹೂ8!ೆ ಾರ; ೆ ಅpರಮ
ಅpರಮ ನಷ:
ಉಂಟು ಾ8 @ೕಸ ಾ8ರುವaದು ತ zಾ !ಾಲದ( ಸಂಗ K+ದ ಎ ಾ 5ಾ{ಾ|Hಾರಗ ಂದ
ದೃಡಪ9:ರುತ' ೆ.ೆ
ಆದQ;ಂದ, ಆ"ೋ-ಗಳ YರುದZ RೕಲAಂಡ ಕಲಂಗಳ ;ೕತS ೋ[ಾ"ೋಪ\ಾ ಪ9:."
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.
10. The RTI activist, the 2nd 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:
"From:
Dinesh Kallahalli,
S/o Ramaiah, Kallahalli Village & Post,
Kanakapura Taluk, Ramanagara District.
To
SHO, Police Station, Devanahalli,
Bangalore Rural District.
23
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.
Sir,
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 23-
02-2017 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.
The backgrounds facts, in short, are as follows:-
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.
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:-
(i) Not to part with and/or share records/documents
of their investments in the schemes of PACL Ltd., with
24
PACL or any other person, till further intimation in this
regard by the Committee; and
(ii) Not to make any new investment or any payment
towards installments or otherwise of PACL Ltd., or its
officers/agents etc.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Thanking you,
Sd/- Dinesh Kallahalli, Mob: 9448618338
Date: 21st April, 2017."
25
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:
"-
-.ಎ
ಎ.+
+.ಎ/
ಎ/ ಕಂಪ ೆ 5ೇ;ದ ಆ+'ಗಳನು< (Anx-3) ಹ"ಾಜು ಾ8 ಬಂದ ಹಣ3ಂದ
-.ಎ
ಎ.+
+.ಎ/
ಎ/ ಕಂಪ ?ಂದ @ೕಸ!ೊAಳ ಾದ ಹೂ8!ೆ ಾರ; ೆ ಹಂB!ೆ ಾಡಲು
ಾಡಲು ಸು- ೕಂ !ೋD&
ನ( ಜ+:ೕE ( ವೃತ') ಾನS^ ೕ Dgï.JA.¯ÉÆÃzsÁ ಕI9ಯು 34ಾಂಕ:02-02-2016
34ಾಂಕ ರಂದು
ಆ ೇಶ(Anx-2)
ೇಶ ಾ8ರುತ' ೆ.ೆ
ೆಂಗಳ ರು ಾ ಾಂತರ f¯Éè ೇವನಹ ಾಲೂಕು,
ಾಲೂಕು ೈ`ಾಪaರ ಾ ಮದ ಸ%ೇ&
ಗುಂ*ೆ)
ಗುಂ*ೆ ರ(ನ
£ÀA.45/1(11UÀÄAmÉ), 59/7(12UÀÄAmÉ) ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÀA.59/3 (11ಗುಂ*ೆ ರ(ನ ಒಟು: ಒಂದು(1)
ಒಂದು ಎಕ"ೆ
ಆರು(6)
ಆರು ಗುಂ*ೆ ಜIೕನನು< !ಾಲಂ ನಂ.
ನಂ 4 ರ( ನಮೂ3+ರುವ ಎ1 ಆ"ೋ-ಯು ಎ10, ಎ11 ಮತು'
ಎ12 ಆ"ೋ-ಗiೆ ಂ3 ೆ 5ೇ; J7 ಆ"ೋ- ೆ ¢£ÁAPÀ:17-02-2016 gÀAzÀÄ ¸Éïï rÃqï
£ÉÆAzÀt (Anx-4) ಾ8!ೊ9:ದುQ J13 ಮತು' J14 DgÉÆæUÀ¼ÀÆ ¸ÁQëzÁgÀgÁVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
ಈ RೕಲAಂಡ
RೕಲAಂಡ ಎ ಾ ಆ+'ಗಳX ಾನS ಸTೕ&ಚV 4ಾSWಾಲಯದ ಆ ೇಶವನು< ಉಲಂಘ4ೆ
ಾ8 ಆ"ೋ-ಗiೆಲರೂ 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
K+ದ ಎ ಾ 5ಾ{ಾ|Hಾರಗ ಂದ
ದೃಡಪ9:ರುತ' ೆ.ೆ
ಆದQ;ಂದ ಆ"ೋ-ಗಳ YರುದZ RೕಲAಂಡ ಕಲಂಗಳ ;ೕತS ೋ[ಾ"ೋಪ\ಾ ಪ9:"
(Emphasis added at each instance)
26
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
UTTAR PRADESH2, wherein while considering the entire spectrum
of the law on this issue it is held as follows:
".... .... ....
v. Whether multiple FIRs pertaining to the same
alleged offence are maintainable?
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.
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
2
2025 SCC OnLine SC 2265
27
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.
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.
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
28
Article 226 of the Constitution. The relevant paragraphs are
as follows:
"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.
xxx
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
29
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.
xxx
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."
(Emphasis supplied)
30
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:--
"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.
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."
(Emphasis supplied)
31
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:--
"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
32
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.)"
xxx
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 officer-
in-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."
(Emphasis supplied)
33
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 counter-
case 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:--
"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)
"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."
xxx
34
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."
(Emphasis supplied)
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:--
"9. From the above conspectus of judgments, inter alia,
the following principles emerge regarding the permissibility
of the registration of a second FIR:
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.
9.2 When the ambit of the two FIRs is different
even though they may arise from the same set of
circumstances.
9.3 When investigation and/or other avenues
reveal the earlier FIR or set of facts to be part of a
larger conspiracy.
9.4 When investigation and/or persons related to
the incident bring to the light hitherto unknown facts
or circumstances.
9.5 Where the incident is separate; offences are
similar or different."
(Emphasis supplied)"
(Emphasis supplied)
35
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.
12. 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 afore-
quoted judgment.
13. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) Writ Petitions are allowed.
36
(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.
(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.
Consequently, pending applications if any also stand
disposed.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
bkp
CT:MJ
