An overlapping FIR need not be quashed when duplicate investigation can be avoided.

The petitioners sought quashing of FIR No. 21/2021 registered by Police Station, Crime Branch, Jammu, for offences under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and Section 88 of the Information Technology Act, together with consequential proceedings.

Imran Beigh’s company, Beigh Construction Company Pvt. Ltd., had entered into joint-venture arrangements with Lalit Aggarwal’s company for execution of construction works connected with the Chenani–Nashri tunnel project in Ramban District.

Disputes subsequently arose concerning the joint venture, alleged forgery and misuse of agreements, diversion of funds, and accounting transactions.

Imran Beigh contended that the impugned FIR was a counterblast to an earlier Crime Branch FIR lodged by him against Aggarwal and that the Crime Branch lacked territorial jurisdiction because the alleged cheating was confined to one district.

The other petitioners—an auditor, chartered accountant and accountant—asserted that they had merely performed professional functions and had been unnecessarily implicated in a commercial dispute.

The complainant relied on the fact that the agreements were executed in Jammu, notarised in Kathua, the works were performed in Ramban, and the parties’ offices and bank accounts were situated in Jammu and Kathua.

It was also noted that a related FIR had been registered by the Economic Offences Wing, Delhi, involving some overlapping allegations, and that a chargesheet had reportedly been filed in that case.

1. Whether the Crime Branch had jurisdiction under SRO 202 to register and investigate the impugned FIR when the alleged acts occurred across Jammu, Kathua and Ramban Districts.

2. Whether the impugned FIR was liable to be quashed as a counterblast or because a related FIR involving overlapping allegations had already been registered and investigated by the Delhi Police.

3. Whether the FIR should be quashed against the auditor, chartered accountant and accountant on the ground that they had merely performed their professional duties and lacked any criminal role.

The Court considered the offences alleged under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and Section 88 of the Information Technology Act.

It applied the jurisdictional principle under SRO 202 that the Crime Branch may investigate offences having a nexus with more than one district.

The Court recognised the principle that, on the same allegations, different criminal cases should not be simultaneously maintained, but held that overlapping allegations do not automatically require quashing of a subsequent FIR; appropriate directions may instead be issued to prevent duplicative investigation and prejudice to the accused.

It also applied the settled principle that disputed factual issues requiring examination of evidence cannot ordinarily be adjudicated in a petition seeking quashing of an FIR, and that the High Court should not conduct a mini-trial.

Section 156(2) Cr.P.C. and the decision in H.N. Rishbud & Inder Singh v. State of Delhi, AIR 1955 SC 196, were relied upon in argument concerning the validity and preservation of investigation proceedings; the Court ultimately addressed the matter by regulating the scope of investigation.

The Court found that the alleged transactions were not confined to Ramban District. The joint-venture agreements were executed in Jammu, notarised in Kathua, the construction work was carried out in Ramban, and the parties’ offices and bank accounts were located in Jammu and Kathua.

Accordingly, the alleged offences had a cross-district character, and the Crime Branch was competent to investigate under SRO 202.

The existence of the earlier Crime Branch case and the Delhi FIR did not, by itself, establish that the impugned FIR was a malicious counterblast warranting quashing.

However, because the Delhi proceedings involved some overlapping offences and had reportedly culminated in a chargesheet, the Court directed that the Crime Branch should not investigate those offences insofar as they related to facts already investigated by the Economic Offences Wing, Delhi, thereby avoiding duplicative proceedings and prejudice to the petitioners.

As to the professional petitioners, the Court held that their alleged participation, knowledge, and connection with the main accused involved factual matters requiring investigation and examination of the record.

Their assertion that they had acted only in the course of professional duties could not be conclusively accepted at the FIR stage, and determining its correctness would amount to conducting a mini-trial.

It declined to quash FIR No. 21/2021 merely because of the related Delhi FIR or the alleged counterblast, while directing the Crime Branch not to investigate allegations concerning facts already investigated by the Delhi Police.

It also rejected the plea of the auditor, chartered accountant and accountant that their professional status exonerated them at the investigative stage.

All four petitions and connected applications were consequently dismissed, subject to the aforesaid restriction on duplicative investigation.