'Arnab Goswami & Amish Devgan' Judgments Won't Apply When Separate FIRs Filed In Separate Incidents Under Same Offence: Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court has ruled that where for separate incidents, involving in same cognizable offence, separate FIRs have been registered, the Apex Court's Judgments in the case of Arnab Ranjan Goswami and Amish Devgan won't apply.

The Bench of Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice Ajai Tyagi observed this while hearing a matter of a person accused of cheating around 3 lacs persons involving around Rs. 4,000 crores which resulted in separate first information reports being filed on different dates and in reference to different transactions against him.

The matter in brief

An investor company (GIPL) received investments from the public for its business and later on, out of the profit from the business, amounts were to be paid to the investors. GIPL opened a bank account in Noble Cooperative Bank Limited, of which the petitioner is the Chief Executive Officer.

The investments came in the bank accounts of GIPL, but on the instructions of the authorized signatory of GIPL, the Noble Cooperative Bank Limited transferred the funds elsewhere which led to leaving hardly any balance in the bank account of GIPL.

Thereafter, 2,61,000 cheques were issued by Noble Cooperative Bank Limited to various investors involving huge amounts (on the instruction of the GIPL). The cheques were issued by the bank alleged to be without knowledge of the petitioner (CEO of the bank). 

The allegations are that the transfer of the entire amount was in the knowledge of the bank yet they issued around 2,61,000 cheques. Thereafter, the investors lodged the first information report in reference to their own transactions.

The petitioner submitted that the allegations of fraud, if any, could have been made against GIPL and the officers of the Cooperative Bank for issuance of cheques without the knowledge and permission of the petitioner

The question before the Court

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that hundreds of FIRs have been registered against the petitioner and in pursuant to those FIRs, the petitioner was to be produced for remand in reference to each FIR whereas, after the first FIR, subsequent FIRs should have been taken to be statement under Section 162 Cr.P.C.

Thus, a prayer was made to the Police Authorities not to produce the petitioner for remand in each FIR rather subsequent FIR be taken as a statement under Section 162 Cr.P.C.

The issue which arose for Court's consideration was this - Whether all subsequent FIRs after the first to be treated statement under Section 162 Cr.P.C. and, accordingly, restrain the respondents to produce the petitioner on remand in reference to each FIR.

Analysis

Noting that in the Amish Devgan case, several FIRs in different States were registered pursuant to a telecast where Amish Devgan said to have made objectionable comments. The broadcast was heard by many persons resulting in the registration of several FIRs.

Referring to Amish Devgan Case, the Court ruled that the Apex Court decided following two points:

• One incident giving rise to more than one cognizable offence cannot result in the separate FIR for each cognizable offence involved therein. The investigation has to be one in respect of all the cognizable offences involved in one incident. It should not result in the submission of a charge-sheet in reference to each cognizable offence and, therefore, the police should not register separate FIR for each cognizable offence involved in one incident.
• One incident may result in several FIRs but subsequent FIR, after the first, is to be treated as a statement under Section 162 Cr.P.C.

However, the Court distinguished the present case from Amish Devgan's case while noting that 

"In the instant case, each FIR is registered by a different person and in regard to the separate incident with him and accordingly, it was registered separately, thus the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of T.T. Antony or even in the case of Amish Devgan would not apply."

Lastly, referring to Arnab Goswami's case, the Court said:

"Those judgments would not apply in the cases where, for a separate incident, maybe involving in same cognizable offence, separate FIRs have been registered. The evidence in reference to each FIR would also be in reference to the individual case."

In the light of the discussion made above, the Court refused the prayer made by the petitioner.

Case title - Dr. Vijay Kumar Sharma v. State Of U.P. And 2 Ors

Click here To Download Order

Read Order