# Piyush Prabhakar & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 5 ILRA 1075
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-12-07
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 9842 of 2020
- **Bench:** Suneet Kumar, Syed Waiz Mian
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/piyush-prabhakar-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-49232
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Section 409 - Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 - Sections154 & 482 - Constitution of
India, 1950 - Article 226 - Second FIR -
Maintainability - Petitioners are bank
officials while complainant is customer of
same bank - The impugned FIR was
subsequently lodged by informant on the
same allegations and arising from same
incident, but the only fact that was further
alleged is that saving bank account of
informant was released by Chief Judicial
Magistrate, but the bank withheld the
1076 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
amount and has not released it to
informant - Held, registration of multiple
FIRs was nothing but abuse of process of
law - Impugned order quashed (Para 4, 8,
9, 20)

Writ Petitions Allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

5 All. Piyush Prabhakar & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1075
in great detail in Ambuj Parag Dubey
(supra)
and
the
manner
in
which
satisfaction is to be recorded has been laid
down. Hence Ram Rahess (supra) is
clearly distinguishable and is of no help to
the petitioner.

9. Therefore, in view of the judgment
of Ambuj Parag Dubey (supra) we find
that in the present case satisfaction has
been recorded as per the Gangster Rules,
2021 and Form-I of the Gangster Act,
which provides the format of the gang
chart. Rule 5(3)(d) of the Gangster Act also
provides that those cases shall not be
mentioned in the gang chart, on the basis
whereof action has already been taken once
under this Act. We, therefore, find that
satisfaction
recorded
by
the
District
Magistrate in the manner in which it has
been done in the present case is in
compliance of the Rules and it cannot be
said that satisfaction is not recorded.

10. In para 37 of Shraddha Gupta
(supra) it has been held by the Hon'ble
Apex Court that even on the basis of a
single case Gangster Act can be imposed,
which is quoted as under:-

"37. Now so far as the main
submission on behalf of the accused that
for a single offence/FIR/charge sheet with
respect to any of the anti- social activities,
such an accused cannot be prosecuted
under
the
Gangsters
Act,
1986
is
concerned, on a fair reading of the
definitions of ''Gang' and ''Gangster' under
the Gangsters Act, 1986, it can be seen that
a ''Gang' is a group of one or more persons
who commit/s the crimes mentioned in the
definition clause for the motive of earning
undue
advantage,
whether
pecuniary,
material or otherwise. Even a single crime
committed by a ''Gang' is sufficient to
implant Gangsters Act on such members of
the ''Gang'. The definition clause does not
engulf plurality of offence before the
Gangsters Act is invoked."

11. In view of the discussions made
herein above, we do not find force in the
argument of the learned counsel for the
petitioner.

12. The petition is devoid of merit and
is accordingly, dismissed.
----------
(2023) 5 ILRA 1075
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.12.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUNEET KUMAR, J.
THE HON'BLE SYED WAIZ MIAN, J.

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 9842 of 2020
with other connected cases

Piyush Prabhakar & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Ravi Prakash Srivastava, Sri Anurag Khanna
(Sr. Advocate)

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A., Sri Gaurav Kakkar

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Section 409 - Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 - Sections154 & 482 - Constitution of
India, 1950 - Article 226 - Second FIR -
Maintainability - Petitioners are bank
officials while complainant is customer of
same bank - The impugned FIR was
subsequently lodged by informant on the
same allegations and arising from same
incident, but the only fact that was further
alleged is that saving bank account of
informant was released by Chief Judicial
Magistrate, but the bank withheld the
1076 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
amount and has not released it to
informant - Held, registration of multiple
FIRs was nothing but abuse of process of
law - Impugned order quashed (Para 4, 8,
9, 20)

Writ Petitions Allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

1. T.T. Antony Vs St. of Kerala & ors., (2001) 6
SCC 181

2. Vijay Kumar Ghai & ors. Vs St. of W.B.& ors.,
(2022) 7 SCC 124

3. Tarak Dash Mukharjee & ors Vs St. of U.P. &
ors., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 731

4. Krishna Lal Chawla & Ors. Vs St. of U.P. &
anr., (2021) 5 SCC 435

5. Vijay Kumar Ghai & ors. Vs St. of W.B.& ors.,
(2022) 7 SCC 124

6. St. of Har. & ors. Vs Bhajan Lal & ors, 1992
Supp (1) SCC 335

(Delivered by Hon'ble Suneet Kumar, J. &
Hon'ble Syed Waiz Mian, J.)

1. Heard Shri Anurag Khanna, learned
Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Ravi
Prakash Srivastava, learned counsel for the
petitioners and learned A.G.A. appearing
for the State.

2. Petitions are being decided by a
common judgment and order as they arise
from the same facts and incident on the
consent of the parties.

3. Despite notice, counsel appearing
for the fourth respondent has not filed
counter affidavit, nor, has he put in
appearance.

4. Petitioners in the bunch of petitions
are the officials of the HDFC Bank Ltd.,
which
include,
Managing
Director,
Additional Managing Director, Company
Secretary, Chief Finance Officer and the
Branch Manager of the Branch. The
complainant is the customer of HDFC
bank, having a saving bank account.

5. For the sake of convenience, the
facts setforth in the Writ Petition No. 9842
of 2020 (Piyush Prabhakar and another vs.
State of U.P. and 3 Others) is being referred
to.

6. HDFC bank is engaged in the
business of banking and financial services,
duly registered with the Reserve Bank of
India, having its registered office at
Mumbai (Maharashtra). The bank has
various branch all over India, including, the
branch
at
Agra.
The
complainant/respondent No. 4 is customer
of bank having account (Saving Account
No. # 01211000207684) at the Agra
Branch.

7. First petitioner is the Branch
Manager, HDFC Bank Ltd. at Agra, since
29.04.2019. It is submitted that the
petitioner was not posted at the branch at
the relevant point of time i.e. January 2018,
during the period when the alleged debit
took place from the bank account of the
informant.

8. The informant had earlier lodged
FIR being Case Crime No. 0083 of 2018,
dated
03.02.2018,
at
Police
Station
Hariparwat, Agra, against the bank officials
and one Dharmendra Singh. It is alleged
that the informant in his bank account was
having balance at Rs.1,00,69,633/- as on
17.01.2018. It is alleged that on an enquiry
of his bank account on 02.02.2018, it
transpired that informant was having
balance at Rs.1,99,574.41 paisa only,
5 All. Piyush Prabhakar & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1077
thereby, a sum at Rs.98,70,000/- was
fraudulently in connivance with the bank
officials was transferred in the account of
Dharmendra Singh of the same branch. It is
further alleged that the account of the
informant was attached by the Income Tax
officials, therefore, it was alleged that the
amount could not have been withdrawn
from the account without connivance of the
bank officials. It is informed that the
Investigating Officer in the said case crime
has filed charge-sheet against six persons
on 25.04.2018 under Sections 420, 467,
468, 471, 120-B, 419 & 411 IPC., including
bank officials.

9.

The
impugned
FIR
was
subsequently lodged by the informant on
the same allegations and arising from the
same incident, but the only fact that was
further alleged is that the saving bank
account of the informant was subsequently
released by the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
vide order dated 18.10.2021, but the bank
withheld the amount and has not released it
to the informant.

10. In this backdrop, it is submitted
by learned counsel for the petitioners that
lodging of the second FIR arising from the
same facts and incident is gross misuse of
process of the court and would be barred in
view of the mandate of T.T. Antony vs.
State of Kerala and others1, which has
subsequently been followed in Vijay
Kumar Ghai and others v. State of West
Bengal and others2 and Tarak Dash
Mukharjee & others v. State of U.P. &
others3.

11. It is further submitted that the
entire amount that was due and admissible
to the informant has already been released
in due course by the bank and a sum at
Rs.1,00,000/- was deducted towards policy
excess (Insurance) which the informant is
not entitled. It is urged that for this reason
the cause to pursue the complainant no
longer survives for the complainant.

12. The only question that arises is
whether the second FIR arising from the
same allegations would be maintainable or
not.

13. Supreme Court in Krishna Lal
Chawla & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. &
another4 observed that multiple complaints
by the same party against the same accused
in respect of the same incident is
impermissible.
Permitting
multiple
complaints by the same party in respect of
the same incident, whether it involves a
cognizable or private complaint offence,
will lead to the accused being entangled in
numerous criminal proceedings. As such he
would be forced to keep surrendering his
liberty and precious time before the police
and the courts, as and when required in
each case.

14. The legality of the second FIR
was extensively discussed by Supreme
Court in T.T. Antony (supra). It was held
that there can be no second FIR where the
information concerns the same cognizable
offence alleged in the first FIR or the same
occurrence or incident which gives rise to
one or more cognizable offences. It was
further held that once an FIR postulated by
the provisions of Section 154 of Cr.P.C has
been recorded, any information received
after the commencement of investigation
cannot form the basis of a second FIR as
doing so would fail to comport with the
scheme of the Cr.P.C. The Court further
held that barring situations in which a
counter- case is filed, a fresh investigation
or a second FIR on the basis of the same or
connected
cognizable
offence
would
1078 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
constitute an "abuse of the statutory power
of investigation" and may be a fit case for
the exercise of power either under Section
482 of Cr.P.C or Articles 226/227 of the
Constitution of India.

15. If multiple First Information
Reports by the same person against the
same accused are permitted to be registered
in respect of the same set of facts and
allegations, it will result in the accused
getting entangled in multiple criminal
proceedings for the same alleged offence,
the registration of such multiple FIRs is
nothing but abuse of process of law.

16. The same principle was reiterated
in Vijay Kumar Ghai and others v. State of
West Bengal and others5, and Tarak Dash
Mukharjee & others v. State of Uttar
Pradesh & others6.

17. The impugned FIR is reproduction
of the allegations made by the complainant
in his earlier FIR alleging that the officials
of the bank in connivance with one
Dharmendra Singh, a customer of the bank
at Agra branch, transferred a substantial
amount of money from the saving bank
account of the complainant, at a time when
the saving bank account of the complainant
was
attached
by
the
Income
Tax
Department.
The
further
additional
allegation made in the impugned FIR by
the
complainant
is
that
the
bank
withheld/delayed the release of the money
to the complainant upon release of the
saving bank account by the order of the
competent court.

18. The allegation of the complainant
that the money of his saving bank account
was withheld and not paid to the
complainant promptly; even on taking the
allegation on face value it would not
constitute an offence. The purpose of the
second FIR appears to have been lodged
with an ulterior motive to coerce the
officials of the branch to permit the
complainant to operate the saving bank
account and withdraw his money. It is also
a case of malicious prosecution.

19. In State of Haryana & Ors. Vs.
Bhajan Lal & Ors.7 considered in detail
the scope of the High Court powers under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or Article 226 of
the Constitution of India to quash the FIR
and referred to several judicial precedents
and held that the High Court should not
embark upon an inquiry into the merits and
demerits of the allegations and quash the
proceedings
without
allowing
the
investigating agency to complete its task.
The Court, inter alia, identified the
following cases in which FIR/complaint
can be quashed:

"102. (1) Where the allegations made
in the first information report or the
complaint, even if they are taken at their
face value and accepted in their entirety do
not prima facie constitute any offence or
make out a case against the accused.

(2) ..... .... ....

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is
manifestly attended with mala fide and/or
where
the
proceeding
is
maliciously
instituted with an ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance on the accused and
with a view to spite him due to private and
personal grudge."

20. Having regard to the undisputed
facts as noted hereinabove, the impugned
FIR being second FIR for the same cause
and incident, registration of such multiple
FIR is nothing but abuse of process of law.
5 All. Raj Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1079

21. In view of the above, writ
petitions are allowed.

22. Accordingly the impugned FIR
dated 16.08.2020, registered as Case Crime
No. 0326 of 2018, under Sections 409 IPC
at Police Station Hari Parvat, District Agra,
is quashed.
----------
(2023) 5 ILRA 1079
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.04.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA, J.
THE HON'BLE MS. NAND PRABHA SHUKLA, J.

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 12207 of 2022

Raj Kumar & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Ashutosh Upadhyay

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A., Sri Om Prakash Vishwakarma, Sri Vinod
Kumar Yadav

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 147, 148, 307, 308, 325, 395,
452, 506 & 120-B - Quashing of FIR -
Second FIR - Maintainability - Application
u/s
156(3)
Cr.P.C.
was
moved
by
respondent
no.3
before
Magistrate
-
Report was sought from concerned police
station regarding the incident - Police
station forwarded the report, St.d that no
FIR has been registered earlier - Relying
on said report, the Magistrate directed for
registration of impugned FIR - Held, in
case, the correct information would have
been furnished by police station, the
impugned FIR would not have come into
existence - As a second/subsequent FIR
has been registered on the basis of wrong
and misleading information forwarded by
police station, therefore, it cannot be
sustained and liable to be quashed. (Para
6)

Writ Petitions Allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:
T.T. Antony Vs St. of Kerala & ors.reported in
(2002) 6 SCC 181

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ms. Nand Prabha
Shukla, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioners, learned A.G.A. for the State
and perused the record.

2. In the instant writ petition the
petitioners seek to challenge the First
Information
Report
dated
30.01.2022
arising out of Case Crime No. 0025 of
2022, under Sections 147, 148, 307, 308,
325, 395, 452, 506, 120-B IPC, Police
Station-Sikrara, District-Jaunpur.

3. The main contention of learned
counsel for the petitioners is that there are
two FIRs registered for the same incident.
Petitioners are named accused in the
impugned
FIR
and
are,
therefore,
aggrieved.

4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the
State pointed out that for the same
occurrence two FIRs have been registered;
(i) the first FIR dated 22.08.2020, arising
out of Case Crime No. 0170 of 2020, under
Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station
Sikrara, District Jaunpur was lodged by
Suraj Kumar (son of respondent no.3)
against four persons (ii) another FIR dated
30.01.2022, arising out of Case Crime No.
0025 of 2022, under Sections 147, 148,
307, 308, 325, 395, 452, 506, 120B IPC,
Police Station Sikrara, District Jaunpur was
lodged by respondent no.3 against 14
named accused persons on the basis of an