IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Sandeep N. Bhatt, J.
Bimal Dashrathbhai Parikh - Appellant
Vs.
State Of Gujarat & Ors. - Respondent
Special Criminal Application (Direction) No. 3179 of 2024
Decided On : 24-12-2024
(A) Constitution of India - Articles 226/227 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Petition to consolidate multiple FIRs alleging identical offences into a single prosecution - The court emphasized that FIRs must be treated separately when they arise from distinct transactions with different complainants and evidence. (Paras 5.5, 5.6.1, 5.6.2)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged multiple FIRs lodged by different complainants regarding loan transactions from 2019 to 2023, asserting that the cases should be clubbed due to their similarities.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the FIRs involved different complainants, transactions, and evidence, thus not eligible for consolidation.
Issues: Whether multiple FIRs involving the same accused can be clubbed as supplementary charges.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that FIRs arising from different transactions cannot be consolidated, as they do not meet the criteria of 'sameness' under the law.
Result: Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Sandeep N. Bhatt, J.
1. The present petition, under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 197, is preferred by the applicant – original accused for direction :- (i) to prosecute the petitioner only under one prosecution treating the first FIR registered with the DCB Police Station, Ahmedabad City on 07.08.2023 and the charge-sheet filed thereunder, which is culminated into Criminal Case No.115700 of 2023 and all other chargesheets / FIRs be treated as supplementary charge-sheet, (ii) to restrain the trial Court from framing the charge in connection with Criminal Cases No.115700 of 2023 & 7482 of 2024 pending before the 11th Additional Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Ahmedabad, Criminal Case No.122886 of 2023 pending before the 9th Additional Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Ahmedabad, (iii) to restrain the Investigating Officer in connection with the C.R. No.11191005230229 of 2023 registered with the Khadia Police Station, Ahmedabad from filing the charge-sheet before the competent Court and (iv) to restrain the learned trial Court from framing the charge in connection with Criminal Case No.61860 of 2024 pending before the 41th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmedabad City.
2. Heard learned advocates.
3.1 Learned senior advocate Mr. N.D. Nanavati with learned advocate Mr. Hriday Buch for learned advocate Mr.Nilay Patel for the petitioner has submitted that the FIRs in question, of the year 2023, are identical and the offences allegedly are also the same; and that in most of the FIRs, charge-sheets have been filed; and that the trial Court is also the same i.e. Metropolitan Magistrate Courts at Ahmedabad; and that the petitioner cannot be made to suffer different prosecutions on identical allegations; and that the loan transactions in question are of the year 2019 when the petitioner was the Chairman and the borrowers of the Colour Merchant Cooperative Bank have lodged the FIRs who have failed to repay the loan, that too after the bank initiates the proceedings for recovery in the year 2020-21; and that no further overt is attributed to the petitioner; and that the petitioner has not derived any monetary benefit out of the said loan transactions in question; and that the petitioner cannot be made to face identical prosecution; and that continuation with all the FIRs, charge-sheet and trials would amount to abuse of the statutory powers of investigation; and that it is a settle legal position that administrating criminal justice is two end process. The rights of the accused are to be guarded under the Constitution with the same zeal as ensuring justice to the victim; and that it is the duty of the Court to balance between the rights of the accused and wide power of the police to investigate a cognizable offence.
3.2 He has further submitted that the identical FIRs are lodged and investigated by the police and all the cases pursuant to the said FIRs are to be tried under one territorial jurisdictional Magistrate i.e. Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad. He has submitted that as per the administrative convenience of the said Court, different police stations are assigned to different Courts. Therefore, though all FIRs are identical against the same set of accused and alleged identical offences, not only that the petitioner will have to face different prosecutions but it would be before different Presiding Officers which would prejudicially affect the right to defend himself; and that the petitioner may not be made to suffer multiple prosecutions in connection with identical FIRs.
3.3 He has also submitted that the offences have occurred in the same bank having various branches within the city of Ahmedabad, however, the loans are sanctioned from the main branch at Astodia (Ahmedabad). He has submitted that the prosecution overlaps the informants and the witnesses in all the FIRs. Despite that, the same is lodged in different police stations within Ahme
T.T. Antony versus State of Kerala reported in (2001) 6 SCC 181
Amit Anilchandra shah versus CBI reported in (2013) 6 SCC 348
Arnab Manoranjan Goswami versus Union of India reported in (2020) 14 SCC 12
State of West Bengal & Ors. vs. Swapan Kumar Guha & Ors.
State of West Bengal & Ors. vs. Swapan Kumar Guha & Ors.
P. Shreekumar versus State of Kerala reported in 2018 (0) AIJEL-SC 61927 : (2018) 4 SCC 579
Delhi Administration versus Gurudeep Singh Uban reported in AIR 2000 SC 3737
Girimallappa v. Special Land Acquisition Officer M & MIP & Anr.
Multiple FIRs alleging identical offences cannot be consolidated if they arise from distinct transactions involving different complainants and evidence.
Amalgamation of complaints being part of same transaction – Consolidation of FIRs is permissible in law but that would depend upon conclusions to be arrived at after investigation.
The court emphasized the necessity of clubbing related FIRs for a unified investigation to prevent conflicting outcomes and ensure justice.
Point of Law : The concept is of 'same offence' under Article 20(2) and section 300 Cr.PC. In case distinct offences are being committed there has to be independent trial for each of such offence bas....
Merely because three separate FIRs have been filed do not mean that they could not be clubbed together and one charge-sheet could not be filed.
The Court ruled for the consolidation of multiple FIR trials involving similar allegations to uphold the right to a fair and speedy trial.
Point of law: scope of doctrine of double jeopardy, observing that “in order to attract the provisions of Article 20(2) of the Constitution, there must have been both prosecution and punishment in re....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.