Amit Kumar Kuklod vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR registered against the petitioners at Crime No. 27/2024 at Police Station EOW, Bhopal. The Court held that the facts mentioned in FIR No. 27/2024, spanning from 01.01.2019 to 23.04.2024, were also part of the transactions in FIR No. 492/2023, which covered the period from 22.06.2020 to 22.05.2023. The Court found no specific and active role or malafide intention ascribed to the Directors of the company, and the company itself was not impleaded as an accused. It was noted that the accused in the first FIR had supplied information to the complainant of the second FIR, suggesting the second FIR was sponsored by them as an abuse of the process of law. Citing T.T. Antony, the Court reiterated that a second FIR in respect of the same cognizable offence or the same occurrence is impermissible. While acknowledging the exception for cross-cases, the Court found that the second FIR in this case was not a cross-case but rather in continuation of the same offence, with the unearthed information being additional evidence against other co-accused. Therefore, interference was warranted. The Police Station, Habibganj, District Bhopal, was granted liberty to conduct further investigation and file a supplementary charge-sheet if required.

Facts

The petitioners, directors of M/s Jayshri Gayatri Food Products Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition seeking to quash an FIR registered against them at EOW, Bhopal, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. This FIR, registered on 22.07.2024, stemmed from a complaint alleging large-scale adulteration of dairy products, theft of GST, and import duty. The allegations pertained to forged lab reports for export, spanning the period from 2019 to 2024. The petitioners contended they were falsely implicated as a counterblast to an FIR they had lodged against an ex-employee, Sunil Tripathi, and others for defrauding the company of approximately ₹15 crores through misappropriation of stocks and manipulation of records between 2020 and May 2023. The earlier FIR (Crime No. 492/2023) also involved allegations of forged lab reports.

Key Issues

1. Whether the registration of a second FIR (Crime No. 27/2024) for offences allegedly arising from the same transaction or occurrence as a previously registered FIR (Crime No. 492/2023) is permissible under law, particularly in light of the principles laid down in T.T. Antony vs. State of Kerala. 2. Whether the allegations in the FIR prima facie constitute any offence against the petitioners, considering their alleged lack of knowledge regarding forged lab reports and the absence of specific roles attributed to them. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioners argued that the second FIR was a malafide act and an abuse of process, lodged as a counterblast to their earlier FIR. They contended that the subject matter of both FIRs overlapped significantly, involving the same forged lab reports. They asserted that the statement of the accused Sunil Tripathi indicated the directors' lack of awareness of the forged reports. Furthermore, they argued that no specific active role or criminal intent was attributed to the directors, and vicarious liability could not be automatically imputed. They also raised concerns about the FIR not being lodged under the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023, and the delay in its publication on the police website, violating Apex Court directions. They relied on Sheila Sebastian vs. R. Jawaharaj and T.T. Antony. Revenue/State's Arguments: The respondents' arguments are not explicitly detailed in the provided text, but their involvement is in defending the FIR and the investigation by the EOW.