AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (6) TMI 672
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s that the investigation under FIR No. RC0682022E0011 be clubbed with investigation under FIR No. RC0682017E0004 dated 13th May 2017. 2. The FIR dated 13.05.2017 was registered for offences under Sections 120-B r/w Section 420 of IPC and Section 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1) (d) of the PC Act. The charge-sheet was filed against other accused for offences under Sections 420, 465, 468 & 471 of IPC and Sections 13 (2), 13 (1) (d) of the PC Act. 3. The FIR dated 27.12.2022 bearing No. RC0682022E0011 was registered for offence under Section 120-B, r/w Sections 420, 468 & 471 of IPC and Section 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1) (d) of the PC Act. 4. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Rajiv Chavan appearing for the Petitioner submitted as under: i) In FIR dated 13.05.2017 investigation is completed and charge-sheet is filed. The second FIR bearing No. RC0682022E0011 was registered on 27.12.2022 for suspected offence during the year 2014 to 2016. It was not necessary to register the second FIR in respect to same transactions. The registration of second FIR is mala fide. ii) In the FIR dated 13.05.2017, the transactions entered and executed by the Firms viz. M/s. Lemon Trading and M/s. Kundan Trading ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntry with same serial number. xi) The FIR dated 27.12.2022 for the alleged offence committed in 2014 to 2016 was registered alleging that the Petitioner and the other accused had entered in conspiracy and insisted certain persons to share their KYCs and opened an account obtained in IE Code for entities of the Petitioner with them as proprietors with Bank of Maharashtra, Nariman Point, Mumbai. It has been alleged that accused mobilized heavy amount in cash and layered the same through Angadiyas, Cheque Discount brokers and got the amount transferred to the two firms Bank Accounts. It is also alleged that the entities arranged low value imports and the serial number of the Bill of Entry was used to prepare escalated and forged Bill of Entry with same serial number purportedly issued by JNPT and Mumbai Port and used for foreign remittance to Hongkong. Thus, it was not necessary to register the second FIR. Hence, the second FIR is required to be quashed and set aside. 5. Mr. Chavan has relied upon the following decisions: i) T.T. Antoy Vs. State of Kerala and Ors (2001) 6 SCC 181. ii) Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr (2013) 6 SCC 348. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... USD value to various banks under the guise of import payments to various entities in Hongkong and thereby the accused persons earned commission. ii) In pursuance of the conspiracy, at the relevant period and at place, in order to escape from the legal consequences, the petitioner, Mohd. Gous by themselves as well as through agents, induced name lenders by obtaining their KYCs for a petty consideration and thereby floated nine accused commercial entities/companies with them as Proprietors and Directors and arranged import export code (IEC) and other statutory registration for several entities. iii) Investigation revealed that, the petitioner and Mohd. Gous induced various name lenders for an amount around Rs. 1000/- to part with their KYCs, obtained IECs and floated nine accused entities. Mohd. Gous at the behest of petitioner briefed the name lenders to tell Bank officers that they are going to do import business from China. Mohd. Gous produced the name lenders with KYC's before the bank officials and got arranged opening bank accounts for the accused entities in the said banks. Shri Ramesh Nagrajan worked as a Chief Manager in Central Bank of India from 02.06.2014 to 28.04.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Smt. Bushra and Smt. Nazneen used to put the forged signatures and seals of the customs officers on the BE, forged signatures of the proprietors of the entities on the import documents such as BE, invoice, bill of lading etc. in token of attesting it. The bill of lading will be prepared by using the serial number in the containers and other details, photographed and sent by Kiran Kokare @ Sona Kalia and Aatu Rehman Sabir Khan @ Moin Md. ix) Investigation revealed that to send more money the petitioner had submitted forged bill Entries prepared by Smt. Bhushra and Smt. Nazneen with same serial number with different dates and different amount to more than one bank and got the payment made multiple times. Further forged Bill of Entry with non-existing EDI serial number were also submitted and forex payment made. The forged Bill of Entry commercial invoice, Bill of lading, Form A-1, Form 15-CA and Form 15-CB alongwith covering letter of 8 entities were submitted by the petitioner and others to Central Bank of India, Punjab National Bank, Axis Bank, State Bank of Hyderabad, Corporation Bank and Canara Bank and on that basis, forex remittances were sent to various entities, holding ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns 420, 468, 471 of IPC and Sections 13 (2) r/w 13(1) (d) of PC Act, 1988 on 27.12.2022. ii) During 2014-16, in pursuance of criminal conspiracy, Shri. Mohammed Farooque Mohammed Hanif Shaikh @ Farooque Shaikh and Shri Mohd. Gaus Mohd. Hanif Shaikh, made Shri. Gulam Gulam Nabi Abdul Kadar Qureshi and Shri Jameel Atiullah Shaikh to share their KYCs and opened an account, obtain IE Code for M/s. Lemon Trading Co. and M/s. Kundan Trading, with them as Proprietors respectively in Bank of Maharashtra, Nariman Point Branch, Mumbai, the accused persons mobilized heavy amount in cash and layered the same through Angadiyas, cheque discount brokers and in Dyaneshwari Multi State Co-operative Societies through Shri. Sohail Ansari, the employee of Shri Mohd. Farooque Mohd. Hanif Shaikh and got the amount transferred to the above said accounts of the two firms in the said bank. After accumulating the funds in the said bank accounts, accused persons prepared forged Bills of Entry in the name of the 2 firms, falsely showing high import value etc, purportedly issued by JNCH Nava Sheva etc. and submitted the same to the Bank of Maharashtra, Nariman Point Branch, Mumbai. It came to light that the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....accused in commission of the offences is separate and distinct. The question of quashing the FIR of 2022 or clubbing the FIR of 2017 and 2022 does not arise. 13. The FIR of 2022, relates to separate instances of illegal forex remittance. Based on submission of forged import documents which had happened in Bank of Maharashtra, Nariman Point Branch. It is in no way connected with the banks covered in the FIR dated 13.05.2017. It cannot be stated that the instances of fraud in Bank of Maharashtra are same set of offences in the earlier FIR of 2017. 14. The officers of Bank of Maharashtra, Nariman Point Branch, who opened the account for two entities M/s. Lemon Trading and M/s. Kundan Trading in the name of Shri. Gulam Nabi Abdul Kadar Qureshi and Mr. Jameel Athiullah Shaikh are different from the officers connected in the FIR of 2017. The persons, who provided cash for being layered and send to Hongkong in the FIR of 2022 may be different from those entities connected in the FIR of 2017. These aspects are under investigation. The agents, brokers and other entities, who layered the cash into RTGS credits into the account of two entities Viz. M/s. Lemon Trading and M/s. Kundan Trading....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... fresh investigation on receipt of every subsequent information in respect of same cognizable offence or same occurrence giving rise to one or more cognizable offences. 18. In the case of Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr. (supra) it was held that there can be no second FIR and consequently no fresh investigation on receipt of every subsequent information in respect of the same cognizable offence or the same occurrence of the instance giving rise to one or more cognizable offences. The second FIR in respect of an offence or different offences committed in the course of same transaction is impermissible and it violates Article 21 of the Constitution. 19. In the case of Amish Devgan Vs. Union of India & Ors. (supra) it was observed that when multiple FIRs were lodged by targeted groups by way of retaliatory proceedings at different Police Stations pertaining to the same offences, the information first entered in police diary, held, must be treated as FIR under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. and remaining information should be treated as statements under Section 162 of Cr.P.C. 20. In the case of Radhe Shyam Vs. State of Haryana and Ors. (supra) the Court....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Lal and Ors. (supra) it was observed that the power of quashing a Criminal Proceedings should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection in rarest of rare cases. The extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer and arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whim or caprice. The Court will not be justified in embarking upon an inquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint. 24. In the case of Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (supra) the apex Court enumerated the principles of law which emerged from various decisions of the Court. It was observed that the Police has statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure to investigate into the cognizable offences. The Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences. If no cognizable offences of any kind is disclosed in the FIR, the Court may not permit an investigation to go on. The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, in the 'rarest of rare cases'. While examining FIR, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot embar....