BANK OF RAJASTHAN v. KESHAV BANGUR AND ANR

Citation: [2007] 10 S.C.R. 506

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: S.H. KAPADIA, B. SUDERSHAN REDDY

Case summary

BANK OF RAJASTHAN v. KESHAV BANGUR AND ANR.pdf

Judgment text

BANK OF RAJASTHAN )-. , V. KESHAV BANGUR AND ANR. OCTOBER 3, 2007 . [S. H. KAPADIA AND B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, JJ. ] . _,( Investigation-Investigation into F! Rs-Lodged before different agencies-FIRs registeredby CBIpursuant to direction by Court-State Police registering FIR u/s 154 Cr. P. C. -Closure ofFIR ofState Police in view of investigation by CBI-Revision Application ofaccused seeking quashingofFIRs ofCBI in view ofFIRs ofState Police-High Court as well as Supreme Court directing investigation ofall the FIRs by CBI-Held: In view ofclosure ofFIR ofState Police and direction ofHigh Court and Supreme Court regarding investigation ofFIRs, '(> Revision Applications have become infructuous-Code ofCriminal Procedure, 1973-s. 482. In a Writ Petition from a Kannchari Sangh alleging siphoningof funds ofappellant Bankby the respondents, inquirywas conducted by CBI, on the direction of High Court.

In Special Appeal, High Court directed CBI to continue further investigation, and CBI registered FIRs in respect of 16 cases. In the meantime one FIRwas registered by StatePolice pursuant to direction ofCriminal Court in a complaint of one 'N' against the respondents. Respective Writ Petitions were filed by the appellant-Bank challenging the registration of FIR by State Police, and by 'N' for direction for expeditious investigation by the State Police. High Court directed expeditions investigation of FIR registered by State Police. Respondents-accused filed application in the Special Appeal statingthat ·in view of registration of FIR by State Police, Information Reports registeredby CBIdid not constitute on FIRin law. Respondents-accused also filed an application in theWrit Petition ofthe Kannachari Sangh, --/ seeking dismissal ofthe Writ Petition by the Sangh in view ofthe FIR registered by State Police.

The FIR of State Police was closed in view of the fact that investigation had been taken by CBI and the documents had been transferred to CBI. Respondent No. 1accused filed two Applications u/s 482 Cr. P. C. seeking quashing ofthe sixteen FIRs by CBI on the ground that they were second FIRs, the first being the FIR registered by State Police. Calcutta High Court by its interim order directed CBI to proceed with the investigation. However, taking ofcogniz. ancewas prohibited without prior permission ofthe Court. By another interim order proceedings pending before Special Judge, CBI, Mumbai was stayed. Hence the present appeals, challenging the interim orders and Transfer Petition seeking transfer ofcase pending before Special Judge, CBI, Mumbai to Special Judge, CBI, Calcutta. This Court by its order dated 8. 3. 2007 directed CBI to investigate into FIR ofState Police and submit its Report before this Court. Disposing of the appeals and allowing the transfer petition, the Court.

HELD: 1. 1. The direction of the High Court contained in the impugned judgment read with the order dated 8. 3. 07 passed by this Court indicates that investigation into FIR registered by State Police as well as into sixteen FIRs have been entrusted to one single agency, namely, CBI. In the circumstances, the question offirst FIRhas become academic. Consequently, two civil revision applications filed by the respondent in the High Courtwill not survive. They stand dismissed as infructuous. [Para 15) [516-E-F] 1. 2. A Closure Report in Final Form was drawn up in connection with FIR registered by State Police inasmuch as CBI had taken up the investigation. The hearingon the final Report ofClosure was concluded before Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate. However, the said Closure was not on merits of the case. It was only on account of the fact that investigation stood transferred to CBI. Consequently, now the State Police has no role to play. (Para 15) (516-G-H; 517-A] 1. 3.

In the present case since investigation has been done by CBI (common agency), the report submitted by it to this Court, pursuant to the order dated 8. 3. 07 passed by this Court would also be placed before the Third SpecialJudge, CBI, Calcutta and itwould be for that court to decide whether the aspects covered in FIR registered by State Police stand covered by the report ofCBI in the said sixteen FIRs orwhether FIR registered by State Police deals with some aspect which is left out by CBI in the said sixteen cases. (Para 16) (518-B-C) Kari Choudharyv. Most, sita Devin andOrs. , AIR (2002) SC 441, relied on. 5. The Special Casearising outofRC 7/E/2002/Mumbai and RC6/ E/2002/Mumbaishall stand transferred from the Court ofSpecialJudge, CBI, Mumbai, (City Sessions Court) to the Third Special Judge, CBI, A Calcutta. (Para 18) CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal Nos. 1327-1328 of 2007. From the Interlocutory Orders dated 13. 9. 2004 and 1. 10.

2004 of the High Court of Calcutta in C. R. A. N. No. 1595/2004 in C. R. R. No. 2545/2003. WITH Crl. A. Nos. 1329-1330, 1331:-1332, 1333, 1334 and 1335 of 2007, T. P. (Crl. ) Nos. 104, 387-388/2004, 82/2005 and T. P. (C) Nos. 236-243/2002. R. Mohan, A. S. G. , Shyam Divan, Ranjit Kumar, Indira Jaising, Paras Kuhad, Hemant Sharma, Prateek Jalan, Ajay Kumar, Rachan ~ Srivastav, Tarun Johri, Barun K. Sinha, Arnn Monga, Pratibha Sinha, B. K. Satija, Anupam Lal Das, P. Parmeswaran, A. Mariarputham, Aruna Mathur, E. C. Agrawala, S. K. Sabharwal, Naresh Bakshi, Tushar Bakshi, Avijit Bhattacharjee, Saumya Kundu, Indra Sawhney and Sunil Kumar I f . --( Jain for 1. he appearing parties. The Judgment ofthe Court was delivered by KAPADIA, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. Akhil Bhartiya Karamchari Sangh filed Writ Petition No. 2094 of 1999 in the Rajasthan High Court alleging that Bangur Group ("Bangurs'' for short) was responsible for siphoning offfunds ofthe Banlc ofRajasthan ("BOR" for short).

As per the order dated 27. 9. 99, the CBI registered a preliminary enquiry. This was on 25. 10. 99. CBI submitted Interim Reports between 28. 3. 00 and 14. 7. 00. On 11. 12. 00, CBI submitted its Final Enquiry Report. Vide order dated 27. 4. 01 the Single Judge directed BOR to file criminal complaints. Against the said order dated 27. 4. 0I, BOR filed special appeal before the Division Bench ofRajasthan High Court saying that since CBI had enquired into the whole matter it (i. e. CBI) should alone be directed to continue with the investigation. Vide Order dated 31. 5. 02, the Division Bench directed CBI to continue with the investigation. Pursuant to the said order dated 31. 5. 02 CBI registered sixteen cases and filed charge sheets as per details given below: (as shown on page 510) 3. In the meantime, one Navneet Baheti buys 500 shares ofBOR during the period between 13. 7. 01 and 20. 7. 01. 4. On complaint being filed by Navneet Baheti under Section 156(3) Cr. P. C.

, the ChiefJudicial Magistrate, Alipore, vide order dated 23. 7. 01, directed the officer-in-charge of Alipore Police Station to register and investigate under Ser. tion 156(3) Cr. P. C. after treating his complaint as FIR. Accordingly, on 25. 7. 01 Alipore Police Station registered FIR No. 138 of2001 against Bangurs under Section 120B, 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471and477A IPC. On 24. 9. 2001 BOR filed Writ Petition No. 1449112001 in Calcutta High Court challenging the registration ofFIR No. 138of2001. On 25. 9. 01 Navneet Baheti also filed Writ Petition No. 14538/2001 in Calcutta High Court praying for expedition of the investigations by the State Police. In the meantime on 27. 9. 01 Bangurs filed an affidavit before the Division Bench ofRajasthan High Court in Special Appeal No. 333 of 2001 in which they contended that since Alipore Police station had registered FIR No. 138 of2001on25. 7. 01, Vl s. Case No. Name of Amount Name Date of Name of Present status - 0 No.

the branch involved in of the filing the Court Rs. Court charge where the where sheet, if charge the FIR any sheet was r:/1 was filed e '"C registered ~ 1 RC CBI/EOW/ 3 crores Ld. 3rd 03. 06. 04 Ld. 3rd Cognizance has ~ 9/E/02-Kol Kol Sp!. Sp!. since been taken tTJ Judge, Judge, and further n 0 Kol. Kolkata. progress is e pending awaiting ~ >-l orders ~ 2 RC CBI/EOW/ 15. 105 Ld. 3rd 25. 11. 04 Lrd. 3rd Charge sheet tTJ '"C 1O/E/02/Kol. Kol. crores Sp!. Sp!. filed in the Court 0 Judge, Judge, but further progress ~ Kol. Kolkata. is pending awaiting r:/1 orders. . , ,. --, . ) RC11/E/02- CBI/EOW/ 2 crores Ld. 3rd 12. 10. 04 Ld. 3rd Charge sheet N 0 Kol. Kol. Sp!. Sp!. filed in the Court 0 -.. J Judge, Judge, but further progress ......... Kol. Kolkata is pending-awaiting - 0 orders. r:/1 h ~ ~ >--- ~ '( . ' . l- ... ·~ ,L 'Y -· to 4 RC 12/FJ02- CBI/EOW/ 46. 50 lacs. Lrd. 3rd 02. 04. 04 Ld. 3rd Cog. Has since been :z Kol Kol. Sp!. Sp!.

taken, but further trial ~ Judge, Judge, is pending awaiting 0 'Tj Kol. Kolkata. orders 5 RC13/FJ02- CBI/EOW/ 1,07,66;265/- Ld. 3rd - Ld. 3rd Investigation ~ Kol. Kol. Sp!. Sp!. completed but :> Judge, Judge, charge sheet not ,........ , C/J Kolkata Kolkata. accepted by the Ld. ~~ 3rd Spl. Judge, ""'O :> :> z Kolkata awaiting sz~ orders ,? >~ 6 RCI4/FJ02- CBI/EOW/ 498. 82 lacs. Ld. 3rd 08. 04. 03 Ld. 3rd Cognizance taken . __, tT1 .. :...... C/J Kol. Kol. Sp!. Sp!. by the Court of the ::r: Judge, Judge, Ld. 3rd Sp!. Judge, :> 10 RC07/E/02- CBI/EOW/ 2 crores Ld. 3rd 30. 12. 03 Ld. Spl. Cognizance has since C> -. l Mum. Mumbai ........ Sp!. Judge for been taken, but trial _. Judge, CBI cases, is pending awaiting 0 Kol. Greater order. r/1 Mumbai n po -~/ .... ,Jo-- ~ y , .. ,.. ,... ~ 11 RC/SIA/02/ CBI/SIU- 9. 5 crores Ld. 3rd cs Ld. 3rd Cognizance has not E/003 X/BS&FC/ Sp!. forwarded Sp!. yet been taken N. Delhi Judge, on Judge, awaiting orders. co Kol. 27. 12.

03 Kolkata ~ 12 RC/SIA/02/ CBI/SIU- 5 crores Ld. 3rd cs Ld. 3rd Cognizance has not ~ Ei'004 X/BS&FC/ Sp!. forwarded Sp!. yet been taken 0 "Tl N. Delhi Judge, on Judge, awaiting orders. Kol. 27. 12. 03 Kolkata ~ 13 RC/SIA/02/ CBI/SIU- 5 crores Ld. 3rd 30. 6. 04 Ld. 3rd Cognizance has not ~ .... _, r:f. J Ei'005 XIBS&FC/ Spl. Spl. yet been taken N. Delhi Judge, Judge, awaiting orders. ~~ Kol. Kolkata 'i::1 > ;:i;. Z 14 RC/BDl/02/ CBI/BS& 5 crores Ld. 3rd cs Ld. 3rd Cognizance has not o~ Ei'0003 FC/ Spl. forwarded Spl. yet been taken }= ~ N. Delhi Judge, on Judge, awaiting orders. '- 15 RC/BDI/02/ CBI/BS& 5 crores Ld. 3rd cs Ld. 3rd Cognizance has not --. the investigative power ofthe police in acognizable offence originates from lodging of an FIR under Section 154 of Cr. P. C. and when an FIR is already pending registration ofa series ofFIRs in respect ofthe same cognizable offence would be a gross abuse ofthe process ofthe court. 15.

The above question has now become academic for the following reasons. Firstly, in our order dated 8. 3. 07 we directed CBI to proceed with investigation into FIR No. 138 of2001 filed in P. S. Alipore, Calcutta. Under the said order we also directed CBI to submit their report under C a seal~ cover within six weeks. That Report has been placed before us. We have gone through that Report. We do not wish to discuss the contents ofthe Report at this stage. By the impugnedjudgment, the Calcutta High Court has directed CBI to take up the investigation ofAlipore PS Case No. 138/01 and has further directed that in the course ofsuch investigation of the said Case No. 138/01 it would be open to CBI to take into consideration the aforestated sixteen FIRs, the period during which the alleged offence were committed and thereafter to decide the course of action to be taken in accordance with law.

The learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate was also directed to transmit the record of Alipore PS Case No. 138/01 to the Third Special Judge, CBI, Calcutta. We agree with the said direction. The said direction of the Calcutta High Court contained in the impugned judgment read with our order dated 8. 3. 07 indicates that investigation into FIRNo. 138/01 as well as into sixteen FIRs have been entrusted to one single agency, namely, CBI. In the ,,.. _ circumstances, the question of First FIR has become academic. That question no more survives. Consequently, two civil revision applications filed by Keshav Bangur in the High Court bearing Nos. 2545 and 2852 of2003 will not survive. They stand dismissed as infructuous. Secondly, on 12. 7. 02 a Closure Report in Final Form was drawn up in connection with FIR No. 138/01 inasmuch as CBI had taken up the investigation. The hearing on the Final Report of Closure was concluded before Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Alipore.

It was allowed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate. However, it may be clarified that the said Closure was not on merits ofthe case. The said Closure was only on account ofthe BANK OF RAJASTHAN v. KESHAV BANGUR fact that the investigation stood transferred to CBI. Consequently, now the Alipore Police Station has no role to play. Lastly, in the case ofKari Choudharyv. Most. Sita Devi and Ors. , AIR (2002) SC 441 at page 443, this Court has explained the legal position in case ofFIRs being filed against the same accused in respect of the same case. This Court has held that when there are rival versions in respect ofthe same incident, they would normally take the shape oftwo different FIRs and investigation can be carried on under both by the same investigating agency.

That, to set aside the proceedings merely on the ground that the final report has been laid in the first FIR is, to say the least, too technical as the ultimate object ofevery investigation is to find out whether the offences alleged have been committed and ifso who has committed them. Even otherwise, the investigating agency is not precluded from further investigation in respect ofan offence in spite offorwarding a report under Section 173(2) on a previous occasion. We quote hereinbelow paragraphs 11 and 12 of the said judgment which read as follow: n "11. Learned counsel adopted an alternative contention that once the proceeding initiated under FIR No. 135 ended in a final report the police had no authority to register a second FIR and number it as FIR 208. Ofcourse the legal position is that there cannot be two FIRs against the same accused in respect ofthe same case.

But when there are rival versions in respect ofthe same episode, they would normally take the shape oftwo different F! Rs and investigation can be carried on under both of them by the same investigating agency. Even that apart, the report submitted by the court styling it as FIR No. 208 of 1998 need be considered as an information submitted to the court reading the new discovery made by the police during investigation the persons not named in FIR No. 135 are the real culprits. To quash the said proceeding merely on the ground that final report had been laid in FIR No. 135 is, to say the least, too technical. The ultimate object ofevery investigation is to find out whether the offences alleged have been committed and, ifso, who have committed it. 12. Even otherwise the investigating agency is not precluded from further investigation in respect ofan offence in spite offorwarding >--. a report under Sub-section (2) of Section 173 on a previous occasion.

This is clear from Section 173(8) ofthe Code. " (emphasis supplied) 16. Applying the above test to the present batch of cases, in our · view, suffice it to state that since investigation has been done by CBI. (common agency) the report submitted by it to this Court, pursuant to our order dated 8. 3. 07, would also be placed before the Third Special Judge, CBI, Calcutta and it would be for that court to decide whether the aspects covered in FIR No. 138/01 stand covered by the report of CBI in the said sixteen FIRs or whether FIR No. 138/01 deals with some aspect which is left out by CBI in the said sixteen cases. Accordingly, it would decide whether the sixteen cases cover all aspects including those falling under FIR No. 138/01 or whether FIR No. 138/01 has some aspects which do not fall in the sixteen cases and, accordingly, it would decide whether to accept the report submitted by CBI before us pursuant to our order dated 8. 3. 07.

Similarly, it would be for that court to decide whether alleged siphoning offtook place under same transaction or under separate transactions. Suffice it to state, all the above cases from Calcutta, Mumbai and Delhi shall be tried and disposed ofin accordance with law by the Third Special Judge, CBI, Calcutta. 17. In Transfer Petition (Cr!. ) No. 104 o/2004 filed by Keshav Bangur versus CBI, the applicant has prayed for transfer ofSpecial Case No. 97 of 2003 filed before the Court of Special Judge, CBI, Greater Mumbai, (City Sessions Court) be transferred to the Third Special Judge, CBI, Calcutta. 18. That, Transfer Petition (Crl. ) No. I04of2004 filed by Keshav Bangur accordingly stands allowed and consequently the Special Case No. 97 of2003 arising out ofRC7/E/2002/Mumbai and RC6/E/2002/ Mumbai shall stand transferred from the Court of Special Judge, CBI, Mumbai, (City Sessions Court) to the Third Special Judge, CBI, Calcutta. 19.

We are informed that six cases filed before the Special Judge, Delhi, have already been transferred to the Third Special Judge, CBI, ' ~ / BANK OF RAJASTHAN v. KESHAV BANGUR Calcutta. "-4 CONCLUSION 20. We direct all the aforestated sixteen cases to be tried and disposed of in accordance with law by the Third Special Judge, CBI, Calcutta. We direct the Third Special Judge, CBI, Calcutta, to proceed on day-to-day basis and complete the trial as expeditiously as possible. )- 21. Consequently, Crl. Appeal No 1327-1328 of2007 arising out of SLP (Crl. ) Nos. 5566-67 of2004, Crl. Appeal No. 1329-1330 of 2007 arising out of SLP (Crl. ) Nos. 5568-5569 of2004, Crl. Appeal No. 1331-1332 of2007 arising out ofSLP (Crl. ) Nos. 5572-73 of2004, T. P. (C) Nos. 236-243/2002, T. P. (Crl. ) Nos. 387-388/2004 and T. P. (Crl. ) No. 82/2005 shall stand dismissed as infructuous as they pertain to interim orders passed by the High Court. 22. Accordingly, our abovejudgment is delivered in Crl. Appeal No.

1333 of2007 arising out of SLP (Crl. ) No. 634 of2005, Crl. Appeal No. 1334 of2007 arising out ofSLP (Crl. ) No. 635 of2005, Crl. Appeal No. 1335 of2007 arising out ofSLP (Crl. ) No. 781 of2007, which are all disposed ofin light ofthis judgment along with T. P. (Crl. ) No. 104 of 2004. In view of our aforestated judgment, Writ Petition No. 2094 of E. 1999 filed by the Akhil Bhartiya Karamchari Sangh in the Rajasthan High Court also stands disposed of. _,,. 23. Accordingly, the above matters are disposed of with no order as to costs. K. K. T. Appeals disposed ofand Transfer Petitions allowed.