SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(SC) 1292

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.V. NAGARATHNA, UJJAL BHUYAN, JJ.
Amandeep Singh Saran – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Delhi & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition (Criminal) No.341 of 2022
Decided on : 06-11-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. J S Attri, Sr. Adv. Mr. Varinder Kumar Sharma, AOR Mr. Raj Singh, Adv. Mr. Shantanu Sharma, Adv. Ms. Deeksha Gaur, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, AOR Mr. Vikramjit Banerji, A.S.G. Mr. M.k. Maroria, Sr. Adv. Mr. Yuvraj Sharma, Adv. Mr. Tacho Eru, Adv. Mr. Anukalp Jain, Adv. Mr. T.S.Sabarish, Adv. Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, Mr. Sumeer Sodhi, Mr. Chaitnaya Sharma, Dr. Joseph Aristotle S., Ms. Shubhi Bhardwaj, Dr. Manish Singhvi, Ms. Shubhangi Agarwal, Mr. Apurv S., Ms. Snehal Uday Kanzarkar, Mr. D. K. Devesh, Ms. Rukmini Bobde, Adv., Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv., Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR, Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv., Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv., Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv., Mr. Soumya Priyadarshinee, Adv., Mr. Ankit Ambasta, Adv., Mr. Amit Srivastava, Adv., Mr. Amlaan Kumar, Adv., Mr. Birender Bikram, D.A.G., Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, AOR, Mr. Keshav Mittal, Adv., Ms. Sabarni Som, Adv., Mr. V.V.M.. Pattabhiram, D.A.G., Mr. Sunny Choudhary, AOR, Mr. Abhinav Shrivastava, Adv., Mr. Shivang Rawat, Adv.

The court emphasized the specific nature of the offenses under different State enactments and recent judgments in declining to grant the relief sought by the petitioner under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

Headnote:

Article 32 - Writ of Mandamus - 3 and 4 of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978, 138 of the N.I. Act, 5 of TNPID Act, 406, 409, 467, 468, 120(B), 13(2), 13(1)(d) of PC Act - The court declined to grant the writ of mandamus to prevent further FIRs, and reserved liberty for the petitioner to approach jurisdictional High Courts to seek clubbing of the FIRs pending within each State. The court also reserved liberty for the petitioner to appear in trial through video conferencing if permitted.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India seeking relief to prevent further FIRs and to club all 30 FIRs filed in different states before an appropriate Investigating Agency/Court in Delhi.

Finding of the Court:

The court declined to grant the relief sought by the petitioner, citing recent judgments and the specific nature of the offenses under different State enactments. The court reserved liberty for the petitioner to approach jurisdictional High Courts for clubbing of FIRs and to seek other available remedies.

Issues: The main issue was whether the relief sought by the petitioner to prevent further FIRs and club all FIRs in different states could be granted under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the relief sought by the petitioner could not be granted, considering the specific nature of the offenses under different State enactments and recent judgments. The court reserved liberty for the petitioner to approach jurisdictional High Courts for clubbing of FIRs and to seek other available remedies.

Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of, and the court declined to grant the relief sought by the petitioner, reserving liberty for the petitioner to approach jurisdictional High Courts for clubbing of FIRs and to seek other available remedies.

Judgement Key Points

The allegations involve the accused purportedly taking a loan from the complainant and issuing a cheque in exchange, which subsequently was dishonoured (!) . A key issue in this case is the contradiction in the complainant's statements regarding the nature of the loan transaction. Initially, she claims to have mortgaged her land and lent money directly to the accused, but later states that she lent money to her son, who returned the amount, and that this amount was then lent to the accused (!) .

This inconsistency raises concerns about the credibility of the complainant's version of events. Additionally, the complainant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for suspicious circumstances surrounding the transaction, which further undermines the reliability of her testimony (!) . Such contradictions and unexplained suspicious details could cast doubt on the veracity of the allegations and challenge the strength of the prosecution’s case.

In cases involving financial transactions and cheque dishonourments, the credibility and consistency of the complainant's statements are crucial. Discrepancies and lack of satisfactory explanations for suspicious circumstances may be grounds for contesting the case, potentially leading to doubts about the accused's liability or even dismissal of the charges if the discrepancies are deemed significant enough to create reasonable doubt (!) .


ORDER :

1. This writ petition has been filed invoking Article 32 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:

    “a. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or such other appropriate Writ directing that no further FIRs be registered against the Petitioner by any Investigating agency premised on the same cause of actions as mentioned in the present petition; and/or

    b. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or such other appropriate Writ directing no cognizance be taken by any court/authority empowered to do so on any Complaint premised on the same cause of action mentioned in the present writ petition.

    c. Issue a Writ directing transfer and/or clubbing of all 30 FIRs i.e. FIR bearing No.477 of 2013 u/s 420, P.S. Basatpur dated 30.08.2013, FIR bearing no.142 of 2013 u/s 420, 409, 120(B) P.S. New Rajendra Nagar dated 24.12.2013, FIR bearing No.22 of 2015 u/s 420, 409/34, 120(B) and Section 3 and 4 of the Prize Chits Money Circulation Scheme (Baning) Act, 1978 and Section 138 of the N.I. Act P.S. New Rajendra Nagar dated 14.03.2015, FIR bearing No.35 of 2015 u/s 420, 120(B), P.S. Korar dated 18.04.2015, FIR bearing No.03 of 2015 u/s 5 of TNPID Act & 406, 420, 120(B) P.S. EOW dated 04.11.2015, FIR bearing no.441 of 2015 u/s 420, 240 of IPC, 3 of Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors and 4 of Maharashtra Money Lenders Act P.S Ramnagar dated 06.09.2015, FIR bearing no.291 of 2015 u/s 420&34 of IPC, P.S. Dhamtri dated 11.10.2015, FIR bearing no.09 of 2015 u/s 406, 420, 120(B), P.S. EOW-II dated 04.11.2015, FIR bearing no.438 of 2015 u/s 409, 420 P.S. kotwali Jhalawar dated 21.12.2015, FIR bearing no.0094 of 2016 u/s 420 & 34 of IPC P.S. Kotwali Rajnandgaon dated 03.02.2016, FIR bearing no.02 of 2016 u/s 406, 420 & 5 of TN Protection of Interest of Depositors Act P.S. Tirunelveli dated 01.03.2016, FIR bearing no.03 of 2016 u/s 406, 420 & 5 of TN Protection of Interest of Depositors Act P.S. Economic offences wing dated 07.03.2016, FIR bearing no.450 of 2016 u/s 420, 120(B) & 4 of Chit Fund Act P.S. Kotwali Durg dated 07.03.2016, FIR bearing no.451 of 2016 u/s 420, 120(B) & 4 of Chit Fund Act Act P.S. Kotwali Durg dated 07.03.2016, FIR bearing no.660 of 2016 u/s 420 and 34 P.S. Harda dated 04.08.2016, FIR bearing no.27 of 2016 u/s 420, 34 P.S. Antagarh dated 11.08.2016, FIR bearing no.445 of 2016 u/s 420 P.S. Nasik dated 05.10.2016, FIR bearing no.33303001170043 of 2017 u/s 420, 3 & 4 of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 P.S. Bemetara dated 18.01.2017, FIR bearing no.87 of 2017 u/s 420, 409, 467, 468, 120(B) P.S. Surajpole dated 01.03.2017, FIR bearing no.94 of 2017, FIR bearing no.95 of 2017, FIR bearing no.97 of 2017 u/s 420, 409, 467, 468, 120(B) P.S. Surajpole dated 04.03.2017, FIR bearing no.173 of 2017 u/s 420& 120(B), FIR bearing No.81 of 2017 P.S. Surajpole dated 04.03.2017, FIR bearing no.81 of 2017 P.S. EOW, FIR bearing Crime No.103/2016, P.S. Umariya, FIR bearing Case Crime No. 532/2013 P.S. City Kotwali, FIR bearing no.29 of 2019 u/s 420, 406, 120(B) P.S. Faridabad Kotwali dated 16.01.2019, FIR bearing no.176 of 2019 u/s 420, 409 & Section 3, 4 and 5 of the Prize Chits Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978 P.S. Pivada dated 28.07.2019, FIR bearing no.329 of 2020 u/s 420,406 34 P.S. Miawali Nagar dated 21.07.2020, bearing FIR No.RC2232022A0003 P.S. AC-V Delhi, u/s 120(B), 406, 420 of IPC and 13(2), 13(1)(d) of PC Act dated 25.05.2022 filed against the petitioner in various states through out the country to be brought together before any appropriate Investigating Agency/Court in the State of Delhi as deemed fit by this Hon’ble Court.

    d. Pass such other and further orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. We have heard learned senior counsel Sri J.S. Attri and learned counsel Sri Sharma for the petitioner and learned ASG for the Union of India, Sri Vikramjit Banerjee learned senior counsel Dr. Manish Singhvi and learned counsel for the respective States and p

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top