Second FIR for forex fraud allowed as forged documents and transactions were distinct from earlier case

The Bombay HC dismissed a petition challenging the legality of a second FIR regarding forex remittance fraud through forged documents. The court held that the forged Bills of Entry used in RC 11(E)/2022 were distinct from those in RC 04(E)/2017, involving different sets of documents submitted to banks. Citing SC precedents, the court noted that while second FIRs for the same cognizable offence or occurrence are impermissible, these cases involved separate transactions with different accused persons, amounts, and timeframes. The court distinguished this from cases involving the same transaction, ruling that both FIRs could proceed independently as they pertained to distinct offences and separate causes of action.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Challenge to the second FIR.
2. Request to club the investigations of two FIRs.

Summary:

1. Challenge to the second FIR:
The Petitioner invoked the writ jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court u/s Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the second FIR (No. RC0682022E0011) registered with EOB, Mumbai, for offences u/s 120-B r/w Sections 420, 468, 471 of IPC and Section 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1) (d) of the PC Act. The Petitioner argued that the second FIR was unnecessary and mala fide since the transactions were already under investigation in the first FIR (No. RC0682017E0004). The Petitioner contended that multiple FIRs for the same offence are not permissible by law, as it would result in multiple criminal proceedings for the same offence, constituting an abuse of process and violating Article 20 (2) of the Constitution of India.

2. Request to club the investigations of two FIRs:
The Petitioner requested that the investigation under the second FIR be clubbed with the first FIR, arguing that both FIRs pertain to the same transactions and offences. The prosecution, however, maintained that the investigations are distinct, involving different transactions, modus operandi, and accused individuals. The prosecution emphasized that the second FIR pertains to separate instances of illegal forex remittance and submission of forged import documents to Bank of Maharashtra, Nariman Point Branch, which are not connected to the banks covered in the first FIR.

Court's Findings:
The Court found that the cause of action in the second FIR is distinct from the first FIR, with no nexus of commonality between the two independent and distinct offences. The Court noted that the second FIR involves different transactions, accused individuals, and entities, and thus, cannot be considered the same transaction as the first FIR. The Court referred to various precedents, including T.T. Antoy Vs. State of Kerala, Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, and State of Jharkhand Vs. Lalu Prasad Yadav, to support the position that multiple FIRs for the same offence are impermissible unless they pertain to distinct transactions or occurrences.

Conclusion:
The Court concluded that the second FIR is distinct and separate from the first FIR and does not arise out of the same transaction. Therefore, the request to quash the second FIR or club the investigations was rejected. The Petitioner's writ petitions were dismissed, and the interim relief, which prevented the Petitioner's arrest, was not extended.

ORDER:
Writ Petition Nos. 2937 of 2023 and 495 of 2023 are dismissed and disposed of. The prayer for extension of interim relief is rejected.

---