JAYANT KUMAR JAIN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant, who is an accused in case FIR No. 53/2019 dated 28.03.2019 registered under sections 409/467/468/471/120B IPC at P.S.: Economic Offences Wing, New Delhi ('Delhi FIR', for short), seeks regular bail.

(2.) Mr. Vikas Pahwa, learned senior counsel instructed by Mr. Sunil Mittal, learned counsel for the applicant, submits that the complainant is the real brother of the applicant, who has filed the FIR in relation to a property bearing No. 9, Hanuman Road, New Delhi ('subject property'). Mr. Pahwa submits that the essence of the allegation is that the accused persons, including the applicant, have illegally usurped the subject property by transferring its ownership to the applicant's wife Mrs. Ekta Jain, who is also an accused in the matter. Senior counsel submits that, other thing apart, substantially the same allegation was investigated in an earlier complaint filed by the same complainant before P.S. : Hare Street, Kolkata, which led to the registration of FIR No. 329/2018 dated 25.11.2018 ('Kolkata FIR', for short). While several allegations were investigated as part of the Kolkata FIR, one of the allegations was inter alia that the applicant had transferred the subject property in favour of his wife on the basis of forged documents including board resolutions etc. and by opening bank accounts. Mr. Pahwa states that after completing investigation however, a final report dated 13.04.2019 has been filed in the Kolkata FIR, in which the Investigating Officer has concluded that the dispute arose long ago and subsequently several civil litigations are pending between the parties before different courts in relation to the dispute; and that accordingly the investigation has been closed, declaring it to be a dispute of civil nature.

(3.) Mr. Pahwa places reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court in T.T. Antony vs. State of Kerala and Others, 2001 6 SCC 181 and draws attention to para 20 of the judgment, to submit that apart from the fact that there cannot be two FIRs in relation to the same offence, there also cannot be any fresh investigation on receipt of every subsequent information in respect of the same cognizable offence or the same occurrence or incident giving rise to one or more cognizable offences.