AMITBHAI ANILCHANDRA SHAH v. THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & Anr.

A person, viz., 'TP' were part of the very same conspiracy and in the same series of acts so connected together that they will have to be tried in one trial u/s. 220 Cr.P.C .. After the investigation of the second FIR, the CBI filed charge-sheet dated 04.09.2012 wherein, among others, the petitioner was also arrayed as one of the accused. The details mentioned in the charge-sheet dated 04.09.2012 clearly show that what the CBI has conducted is mere 'further investigation' and the alleged killing of 'TP' was in continuance of and an inseparable part of the c conspiracy which commenced in November, 2005 by abduction of 'S', 'K' and 'TP' and which culminated into the final stage of alleged killing of 'TP' who was kept under the control of accused police officers since he was a material eye-witness like 'K'. Thus, the charge-sheet 0 dated 04.09.2012 itself is conclusive to show that the said charge-sheet, in law and on facts, deserves to be treated as 'supplementary charge-sheet in the first FIR'. [Paras 28 and 30) [655-F-H; 658-G-H; 659-A-B] - E

2.6. In view of the factual situation as projected by the CBI itself, merely because two separate complaints had been lodged, did not mean that they could not be clubbed together and one charge-sheet could not be filed. In view of the consistent stand taken by the CBI, at this juncture, CBI may not be permitted to adopt a F contradictory stand. [Paras 33 and 34) [663-C-D] T. T. Anthony vs. State of Kera/a (2001) 6 SCC 181: 2001 (3) SCR 942; C. Muniappan and Ors. vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2010) 9 SCC: 2010 (10) SCR 262 - relied on. G

#2. 7. The factual details show that right from the inception of entrustment of investigation to the CBI by order dated 12.01.201 O till filing of the charge-sheet dated 04.09.2012, this Court has also treated the alleged fake encounter of 'TP' to be an outcome of one single H conspiracy alleged to have been hatched in November, AMITBHAI ANILCHANDRA SHAH v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 629 2005 which ultimately culminated in 2006. In such A circumstances, the filing of the second FIR and a fresh charge-sheet foi"the same is contrary to the provisions of Cr.P.C. suggesting that the petitioner was not being investigated, prosecuted and tried 'in accordance with law' . [Para 31] [659-C-E] B

2.8. The observations, findings and directions in Rubabbuddin Sheikh case clearly show that the alleged killing of 'TP' was thus perceived even by this Court to be an act forming part of the very same transaction and C same conspiracy in which the offence of killing of 'S' and 'K' took place. The CBI also, upon investigation held that "strong suspicion expressed by this Court in the above judgment was true and filed charge sheet/s". [Para 19] ·, [641-A-B] D

2.9. This Court accepting the plea of the CBI in Narmada Bai case that killing of 'TP' was part of .the same series of cognizable offence forming part of the first FIR directed the CBI to "take over" the investigation and did not grant the relief prayed for i.e., registration of a fresh E FIR. Accordingly, filing of a fresh FIR by the CBI is contrary to various decisions of this Court. [Para 52(a)] [671-D] F

2.10. A second FIR in respect of an offence or different offences committed in the course of the same transaction is not only impermissible but it violates Article 21 of the Constitution. Thus, in the light of the specific stand taken by the CBI before this Court in the earlier proceedings by way of assertion in the form of counter affidavit, status reports, etc., filing of the second FIR and G fresh charge-sheet is violative of fundamental rights under Article 14, 20 and 21 of the Constitution since the same relate to alleged offence in respect of which an FIR had already been filed and the court has taken cognizance. [Paras 32 and 53] [659-F; 674-E-F] H 630 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 6 S.C.R. A T. T. Anthony vs. State of Kera/a (2001) 6 SCC 181: 2001 (3) SCR 942 - relied on.

2.11. Thus, the second FIR dated 29.04.2011 filed by the CBI is contrary to the directions issued in judgment B and order dated 08.04.2011 by this Court in Writ Petition (Narmada Bai case) and accordingly the same is quashed. As a consequence, the charge-sheet filed on 04.09.2012, in pursuance of the second FIR, be treated as a supplementary charge sheet in the first FIR. [Para 54] [675-A-B] C