D.K.Seth, J. - (1.) The judgment and order dated 12th of February, 2004 passed by the learned Single Judge in W. P. No. 12086(W) of 1999 with CAN 712 of 2004 dismissing the writ petition is under challenge in this appeal. In the writ petition, the appellant had prayed for quashing of the First Information Report (FIR) dated 24th May, 1999 lodged against him. Submission of the appellant:
(2.) Mr. Saktinath Mukherjee, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, made it clear that the challenge was not on the ground that the FIR does not make out a case but altogether on a different ground viz. that no proceeding can be taken or investigation can be undertaken except on the First Information Report viz. the report conveying the information for the first time to the investigating authority. An investigation initiated on the basis of a subsequent FIR is wholly incompetent. There cannot be successive FIR. There cannot be successive investigation or fresh investigation on the basis of successive FIR. Referring to the facts of this case, he pointed out that the first FIR or complaint was lodged by the respondent on 22nd October, 1998 through its letter of even date; a second on 31st of March 1999 and the third one on 24th of May, 1999. The investigation followed the third complaint dated 24th of May, 1999. He also refers to the mala fide apparent on the face of the records relying on the letter dated 24th of May, 1999, complaint dated 31st March, 1999 and letter dated 16th May, 2001 respectively at pages 239, 240 and 244 of the petition and pointed out that after the complaint dated 22nd of October, 1998, the C.B.I, addressed a letter to the respondent on 23rd of March, 1999. Referring to the complaint lodged on 31st of March, 1999, the Chief Vigilance Officer (E) called for the interim report from the C.B.I. authority in order to utilize the report in connection with the civil cases pending before this Court between the parties. Therefore, it is on the basis of the instruction received from the C.B.I, through its letter dated 23rd March, 1999 the complaint dated 24th May, 1999 was made. Submission on behalf of the respondents :
(3.) A preliminary objection was taken by Mr. Ranjan Roy on behalf of the C.B.I, that a chargesheet has since been filed, therefore, the appeal has become infructuous. Mr. S. K. Kapoor, appearing on behalf of the Union of India, supported the preliminary objection raised by Mr. Ranjan Roy apart from his contentions on merit. According to him, the investigation started on the basis of the complaint made on 24th of May, 1999, which was the First Information Report first recorded. The records were produced; the other two complaints were not found to be recorded in the First Information Register. This was the finding of the learned Single Judge. He further contended that it is the complaint on which investigation is initiated first is the First Information Report. The other two complaints not being acted upon and no investigation having been initiated thereupon, those two complaints cannot be treated to be First Information Report. The embargo is on successive investigation on the basis of successive complaints. But there is no prohibition in initiating investigation on the basis of a complaint made last or subsequent to the earlier complaints. Until earlier complaints are registered and treated as First Information Report, the principle enunciated in the case of T. T. Antony vs. State of Kerala & Ors., 2001(6) SCC 181 cited by Mr. Mukherjee has no manner of application. Reply by the appellant :;