Point of Law: It is true that law recognizes common trial or a common FIR being registered for one series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction as contemplated under Section 220 of the Code. There cannot be any straight jacket formula, but this question has to be answered on the facts of each case. This Court in the case of Mohan Baitha v. State of Bihar [(2001) 4 SCC 350], held that the expression ‘same transaction’ from its very nature is incapable of exact definition. It is not intended to be interpreted in any artificial or technical sense. Common sense in the ordinary use of language must decide whether or not in the very facts of a case, it can be held to be one transaction.

ORDER :

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for the following reliefs;

(A) That the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to admit this Criminal Misc. Application.

(B) That the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow this present Criminal Misc. Application by quashing and setting aside the complaint filed at Annexure A as FIR No.11210008201208 of 2020 before Sarthana Police Station, Surat and also be pleased to quash further proceedings arising out of the same qua petitioners in the interest of justice.

(C) Pending admission, hearing and till final disposal of this petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to grant stay as to further proceedings of FIR No.11210008201208 of 2020 registered before Sarthana Police Station, Surat in the interest of justice.

(D) Grant such other and further relief as deemed just and proper by this Hon'ble court in the interest of justice.

2. It is contended by the petitioners that the FIR has been filed by one Rajubhai Ravjibhai Desai inter alia mainly stating that he is residing at the address mentioned in the complaint along with his family and doing construction work in the name and style of “Sidhhi Vinayak Corporation” and earning his livelihood. It is further contended by the complainant that at present one construction site is running at Village : Laskana, District: Surat and block no.(D) is completed and possession is also given to the customers many of them are residing in the said building and for other blocks, construction work is going on.

2.1. It is contended by the complainant that he has purchased aforesaid construction site in the year 2013-2014 from one Kishorbhai Maida by executing registered sale deed and after purchasing the same, N.A proceedings have started in the year 2015 and at that time, the complainant came to know that old ULC case is pending and accordingly he contacted the original owner namely Rukhiben Patel and for the said proceedings, he was in need of Rs.4 Crores. According to the complainant, he has contacted his friend namely Chaturbhai Ramani who introduced the complainant with Vijaybhai Khokhariya and Shaileshbhai Bhatt and accordingly, both of them have agreed to lend the money at the rate of 1.5% and even for security purpose of Rs.8 Crores, documents of the land from the complainant demanded by them. It is further contended by the complainant that after 15 days, the amount was given to him by cheque and Rs.30 Lakh towards interest for the period of six months came to be deducted even one registered agreement to sale dated 03.06.2015 without possession came to be executed by him in favour of Vijaybhai Khokhariya for a sum of Rs.6,45,13,385/-.

2.2. It is contended by the complainant that after two months of executing of aforesaid documents, he was called by Shaileshbhai Bhatt at the office of Chaturbhai and he was asked to immediately return the amount as Shaileshbhai Bhatt informed that he has to pay 4.5% interest or else complainant has to pas very same interest on the next day. It is contended that again, complainant was called at the office of advocate Dharmesh Patel where Shaileshbhai Bhatt and Nikunj Bhatt were present and complainant was asked to pay interest at the rate of 4.5% and in default, another 1% of interest towards penalty was to be paid. It is further contended by the complainant that till November 2017, the complainant has paid interest and towards actual amount of Rs.2 Crore is to be paid to one Kirit Paladiya and Ankush Nakrani as per the instruction given by Shaileshbhai Bhatt and Nikunj Bhatt. It is further contended that in all, the complainant has paid Rs.6 Crore including interest as well as Rs.2 Crore cash and, therefore, the complainant has requested Shaileshbhai Bhatt and Nikunj Bhatt to execute document, however, they have given excuse that the advocate is not available and accordingly promise was made to execute documents in next month.

2.3. It is further stated in the FIR that after 15 days, co