ORRIS INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD vs STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Order reserved on : 28 June 2024 Order pronounced on : 01 July 2024 + W.P.(CRL) 1914/2024, CRL.M.A. 18591/2024 ORRIS INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD ….. Petitioner Through: Ms. Jyoti Taneja, Adv. versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ….. Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, ASC along with Mr. Vaibhav Vats, Adv. for State. Inspector Awadesh Kr. Singh, IO from EOW, New Delhi. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA O R D E R % 01.07.2024
1. The petitioner invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C.1 seeking issuance of appropriate writ/directions for quashing of FIR2 No.06/2024 dated 09.02.2024 registered by the EOW3 under Section 406/420/467/468/471 and 120B of IPC4 along with all consequential reliefs arising therefrom.

1 Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 2 First Information Report 3 Economic Offences Wing 4 Indian Penal Code

2. Mr. Bhandari, learned APP for the State is present on advance notice with IO5/Inspector Awadesh Kumar. He seeks time to file reply.

3. Ms. Jyoti Taneja, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged that the present FIR bearing No.06/2024 is a third FIR on identical facts after series of supplementary police reports/charge sheets, which is based on the same nature of allegations levelled by a new set of complainants/investors viz., now 168 persons in number, which allegations are the subject matter of investigation in the earlier FIR No.137/2017, in respect of Greenopolis project at Gurugram for defaults and illegalities committed by Three C Shelters Pvt. Ltd.

4. It is vehemently urged that there cannot be multiple FIRs with regard to the same offences or series of offences and fresh complaints entertained by the investigating agency have to be clubbed and inquired into in the course of further investigation, if any, in respect of FIR No.137/2017. It is pointed out that while the chargesheet in FIR NO.137/2017 was filed on 27.09.2019, thereafter three supplementary chargesheets have been filed in the course of last three – four years viz., on 03.06.2020, 05.02.2021 and 16.08.2022. It is also pointed out that the investigation is being conducted pursuant to the FIR no. 06/2024 by the same Investigating Officer.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decisions in TT Antony v. State of Kerala6 besides Amitbhai

5 Investigating Officer 6 (2001) 6 SCC 181

Anilchandra Shah v. CBI7; Arnab Ranjan Goswami v. Union of India8 and Amish Devgan v. Union of India9.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the State and contents of the present FIR No.06/2024, there is an inescapable conclusion that the present FIR is based on same set of allegations which are forming part of the same transaction and by all means intricately connected with the matter under investigation/trial arising out of FIR No.137/2017. Shorn off unnecessary details, the complainants are unfortunate homebuyers who booked the residential units in Project Greenpolis, Sector 83, Gurugram, Haryana, purportedly licensed by the petitioner company and to be developed by M/s Three C Shelters Pvt. Ltd., which were supposed to be completed in about three years from the date of booking and despite huge investments by them, the project remains to be incomplete; and thus they allege cheating and siphoning of funds by the petitioner and its promoters & directors, resultantly causing them wrongful financial loss; and thus seeking initiation of criminal proceedings against them under various provisions of the IPC.

7. In the cited case titled TT Antony v. State of Kerala, the Supreme Court examined plethora of case law on the subject of registration of second FIR in respect of matter under investigation in the first FIR, and it was held as under:

7 (2013) 6 SCC 348 8 (2020) 14 SCC 12 9 (2021) 1 SCC 1

“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 Cr.P.C. or under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution. {paragraph 27}
8. In view of the above, without further ado, since the investigating agency has already clubbed/merged further complaints pursuant to initial FIR No. 137/2019, by way of filing supplementary charge-sheets, there arises no legal imperative to register a fresh FIR on the same set of allegations and initiate de novo investigation, which is impermissible.

9. The issues raised by learned counsel for the petitioner requires a deeper examination.

10. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by learned APP for State. Let reply be filed within four weeks from today.

11. In the meanwhile, it is directed that the fresh FIR No. 06/2024 be clubbed with the ongoing investigation in FIR No. 137/2017 and it

is provided that while the investigation is based on the fresh set of the complaints received, the IO may continue to club or merge the FIR No. 06/2024 with the earlier FIR in accordance with law and in terms of directions in the pending proceedings in Criminal Revision no. 310/2024 before the Learned ASJ-03, South East District. No coercive process shall be initiated against the petitioner company and its Directors, who are already arraigned as accused persons in the pending criminal proceedings emanating from FIR No.137/2017.

12. Re-notify before the Roster Bench on 12.08.2024.

DHARMESH SHARMA, J. (VACATION JUDGE) JULY 01, 2024 VLD