Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
Praveen K.P. @ Praveen Rana, S/o. Pushkaran - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Kerala, Represented by the Chief Secretary, Government Secretariat & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(Crl.) Nos. 230 & 381 of 2023
Decided On : 25-08-2023
clubbing of FIRs - crimes against petitioner - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019 - The court declined the relief for clubbing of FIRs as the complaints were filed at different locations, relating to separate and independent transactions, involving different parties and provisions of law. The court referred to previous judgments and emphasized that each individual deposit agreement should be treated as a separate and individual transaction. The relief for clubbing of FIRs was declined.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought reliefs relating to crimes registered against him in various police stations, including a direction to club together all the crimes registered against him and a declaration that he is entitled to be enlarged on bail in all cases registered against him. The petitioner alleged that the registration of a series of crimes on the basis of the same transaction and cause of action is illegal and sought various reliefs based on these facts.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that clubbing all the FIRs as a single offence solely for the convenience of the accused or the agency would be prejudicial to the numerous depositors/complainants. The court also declined the prayer for a comprehensive bail and emphasized that a blanket order granting bail in all cases registered and to be registered in the future is not contemplated under law. The court also noted the attempt to deny the petitioner's liberty by avoiding arrest in many cases for long periods and emphasized the need for fair and prompt investigation.
Issues: (i) Whether all the FIRs registered against the petitioner can be clubbed together? (ii) Whether a comprehensive bail can be directed to be granted in all cases registered against the petitioner, deeming his date of arrest as 13.01.2023? (iii) Any other reliefs.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that each individual deposit agreement should be treated as a separate and individual transaction and declined the relief for clubbing of FIRs. The court also highlighted the need for fair and prompt investigation, emphasizing the rights of the petitioner as well as the investigating agency and the complainants.
Final Decision: W.P.(Crl.) No.230 of 2023 is dismissed, while W.P.(Crl.) No.381 of 2023 is disposed of as above.
JUDGMENT :
These two writ petitions are filed by the same petitioner seeking reliefs relating to crimes registered against him in various police stations. Since the issue raised in these writ petitions are inter-connected and they were heard together and are being disposed of by this judgment.
2. In W.P.(Crl.) No.230 of 2023, petitioner seeks for a direction to club together all the crimes registered against him and also to transfer all the cases to the Designated Court under the BUDS Act. In W.P.(Crl.) No.381 of 2023, petitioner seeks a declaration that he is entitled to be enlarged on bail in all cases registered against him as detailed in the document produced in the writ petition in view of the decision in Abhishek Singh Chauhan v. Union of India and Others (2022 SCC OnLine SC 1936) by treating the first crime registered against him as the principal FIR. In the latter writ petition, the reliefs sought also include a declaration that judicial custody in all the crimes against the petitioner be reckoned from 13.01.2023, the date of remand in the first case registered against him.
3. On 04.01.2023, Crime No.42 of 2023 of Thrissur East Police Station, alleging offences punishable under sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered against the petitioner. Soon, several other crimes were also registered against him. He was arrested on 11.01.2023, and since then, he remains in judicial custody.
4. Petitioner is the Chairman and Managing Director of an entity by the name M/s. Safe Strong Business Consultancy Private Limited. In Crime No.42 of 2023, it was alleged that petitioner promised to pay a franchisee stipend every month if a deposit is made and return the deposit after five years or to return a bulk amount along with the deposit after the term and failed to pay any amount as promised. Writ petition refers to 115 crimes registered against him before various police stations at Thrissur, Palakkad, Kannur, Kottayam, Wayanad and Pathanamthitta.
5. Petitioner contended that the allegations against him in all the crimes are the same and that investigation of those crimes have been transferred to the State Crime Branch as per an order dated 19.01.2023. Petitioner contends that all those crimes registered against him ought to have been clubbed together and re-registered as a single crime. Petitioner also contended that the Crime Branch had added offences under the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019 (for short 'the BUDS Act') and transferred the cases to the Designated Court -III (Additional Sessions Court), Thrissur. Petitioner further alleges that the registration of a series of crimes on the basis of the same transaction and cause of action is illegal as they need to register only one FIR in connection with the offence, and hence all the FIRs ought to be clubbed together as a single offence. The reliefs, as mentioned earlier, are claimed on the basis of the aforesaid facts.
6. Petitioner alleged that after the news of registration of the first crime became known, there was a scramble to lodge crimes at different police stations. As on the date of filing of the said writ petition, 186 crimes have been registered. Though petitioner has been in custody since 13.01.2023, arrest has been recorded only in a limited number of cases. Petitioner alleges that the conduct of the Investigating Officer in omitting to record the arrest is arbitrary and violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioner.
7. An example has been cited in respect of Crime Nos.61 of 2023 and 79 of 2023 of Vadanappally Police Station wherein, petitioner’s bail applications were dismissed, stating that the accused has not been arrested. Since arrest has not been recorded in 142 cases, he alleges that he is not able to get bail or even attempt to get regular bail. Thus, petitioner prays to be enlarged on bail in all the cases registered against him.
8. Counter affidavits have been filed in both writ petitions. The request for clubbing of v
The Court ruled for the consolidation of multiple FIR trials involving similar allegations to uphold the right to a fair and speedy trial.
Multiple FIRs arising from the same transaction are impermissible and must be consolidated for a fair investigation.
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.
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 Consti....
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.
Permitting multiple parallel criminal investigations for the same occurrence violates established procedural law. A unified investigation prevents institutional conflict, ensures judicial consistency....
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
