Manjit Kaur v. State Of Ut, Chandigarh And ANR
-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 25.10.2021 Manjit Kaur ...... Petitioner
Versus
State of U.T. Chandigarh and another ......... Respondents
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMOL RATTAN SINGH
Present:
Mr. R.K. Handa, Advocate, for the petitioner.
***** AMOL RATTAN SINGH, J. (ORAL) ase heard via
!
" "
#$% % & $$ ''
($ % "
# ) $ $ * ' % ' "
%
!
$$
* ' +
$$+,& -
. ' (& / 0 %
'' $ + ' / 0 ' 2 ' ' . '
$ (
$ ' $$+
-2- ' ' '' ' + + ' %
3
'( + $
% 34
($
$' ' $
$ ' $ ' 5($
' '$ %
.
' ' ( $$ $
' ' ($
$ ' & #$( %
.$$ ' ' $$ +
'' ' 5($
$
' ' ($
5($
'' +$$(' $$
%
"
6 ' 7' $( +$
( ' ( ' +'
2+ ' 5($
% 4 3 4"
$
' '
% 4 "
6( ++$$(
$ $ $+ )
+8 $$ 9+ '$$$( + + 9$$(' 8+ ($ : $
8& $
&+ (
% 34/"0 34/!0
-3-
' ( '($
; $ ( ( < What is to be noticed is that, in both the examples cited by the Supreme Court in that case, it was a matter of either adding of another offence qua the same occurrence, if the investigating agency found during the course of its investigation that such other offence was also committed (other than those alleged in the First Information Report (FIR); or (as per the other example), on an FIR being registered at the instance of a husband to the effect that his wife had been murdered by some person, but during the course of investigation it having been found that he himself was the murderer, naturally no separate FIR was to be registered.
In the present case, FIRs are stated to have been lodged against the petitioner prior to the one in question by different persons, alleging that they had been duped by the petitioner (in the same/similar manner as was the complainant in the FIR in question). Hence, each act of alleged fraud/cheating etc., as is alleged to have been committed by the petitioner, was a different occurrence altogether and not the same occurrence in which different persons had been duped. An example may be taken (though a rather morbid one), that if a murder is alleged to have been committed by one person today and another murder is alleged to have been committed by the same person two days later, obviously the two occurrences are completely different and the second FIR would not be quashed on the ground that the second murder also should have been added as an
-4offence in the first FIR.
Though Mr. Handa submits that the situation is completely different, I do not see how that situation is different, because admittedly as regards other FIRs registered against the petitioner prior to the one in question, the complainants are completely different persons to the complainant in the FIR in question, with none of the complainants having referred to the petitioner being duped by a complainant in an another FIR, though a reference may have been made that she is also duping many other people.
Consequently, quashing the FIR on the touchstone of the ratio of the judgment in / 0+$ It is also necessary to notice that Mr. Handa has also referred to Section 219 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which pertains to a single trial being conducted in respect of three offences that may have been alleged to have been committed by a single accused within the space of one year from each other.
Again, that is a situation which is completely different to the present one as no report under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. is stated to have been submitted to the competent court in respect of any FIRs registered 'against the petitioner', even in the course of the same year.
Naturally, if those reports come to be submitted in different FIRs, the petitioner would be at liberty to seek a single trial in terms of Section 219 of the Cr.P.C., which application, if moved, would obviously be considered by the competent court wholly on its own merits.
-5When this court was in the process of dismissing this petition, Mr. Handa seeks to withdraw the petition, with liberty to file another petition seeking that at least investigation in all FIRs registered against the petitioner be clubbed. Consequently, this petition is ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn. If any petition is filed by the petitioner seeking clubbing of the investigation in all FIRs, naturally that would be considered on its own merits. [It is to be noticed that Mr. Y.S. Rathore, learned Addl. PP. U.T. Chandigarh, has appeared on advance notice received by him, of the petition.] October 25, 2021 (AMOL RATTAN SINGH) dinesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether Reportable Yes