Back
SANDEEP N. BHATT
Bimal Dashrathbhai Parikh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondent
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
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....
The court ruled that multiple FIRs for the same cause of action infringe the accused's right to a speedy trial, necessitating consolidation of cases for efficient judicial proceedings.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
