The Delhi High Court ruled that the 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.
The application, that has been filed by the applicant, Anoop Joshi sought who made the prayer seeking an interim order to the CBI not to register an FIR against him on the allegations in the writ petition till the disposal. The applicant is one Mr.Chander Shekhar, Additional Director General, Department of Revenue, Ludhiana Ministry of Finance i.e. the former public servant who seeks intervention and seeks that he too be arrayed as a party to the petition.
As regards the prayer seeking directions to the the CBI for the registration of an FIR under Sections 7, 8, 9 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, read with Sections 383, 384, 389, 120B Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the Public Servant, Chander Shekhar, Additional Director General, Department of Revenue, Ludhiana Ministry of Finance tendered by the petitioner to the CBI and complaint filed in the first week of September, 2019 and the complaint filed by the petitioner with the CBI, the status report that has been submitted by the CBI.
It has been submitted on behalf of the CBI that the present petitioner bases his claim on the complaints as have been stated in the status report inclusive of the complaint dated 06.07.2020 which relate to the period separate from that in relation to the complaint of Sh.Sudhir Gulati and are even prior to the same, though during the course of the investigation in RC No.42/2019, the present petitioner has made statements before the CBI in relation to the meetings that were held between the petitioner and the persons named Anoop Joshi, Rajesh Dhanda as well as with allegations against Sh.Chander Shekhar, Additional Director General, Department of Revenue, Ludhiana Ministry of Finance all that the present petition has averred through his complaint.
The single bench of Justice Anu Malhotra held that the intervention application and the application filed by the applicants seeking a stay of the proceedings as well as any directions for non-registration of the FIR as prayed on behalf of the applicant cannot be granted and is declined and the other applications seeking directions.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. We welcome your comments at info@taxscan.in
