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

2024 Supreme(Raj) 1005

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Farjand Ali, J.
Vikram Singh S/o Sh. Chhug Singh - Petitioner
Vs.
State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Deptt. Of Home Govt. Of Raj. Jaipur - Respondent
Criminal Writ Petition No. 1479 of 2023
Decided On : 23-08-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Mr. Dhirendra Singh, Sr. Advocate assisted by Ms. Priyanka Borana
For the Respondents: Mr. Anil Joshi, AAG with Mr. Pallav Sharma, Present in person : Mr. Chiranji Lal Meena, A.S.P., S.O.G., Jaipur

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.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 219 and Section 407 - BUDS Act - Holding multiple FIRs for identical cause of action against an accused leads to an unmanageable and prolonged trial process, infringing the constitutional right to a speedy trial under Article 21. The Court highlighted the inconvenience caused to the accused due to multiple court appearances, and directed consolidation of 259 FIRs across several districts for efficient proceedings. (Paras 24-30)

(B) Fair Trial - Fundamental Rights - The right to a fair and speedy trial comprises the inherent right to defend without undue delay or harassment. The prolonged detention and procedural burdens on the accused violate their rights. The court underscored the necessity of judicial efficiency and proper administration of justice. (Paras 9, 21, and 29)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, facing charges including cheating and conspiracy as the chairperson of a credit cooperative society, was confronted with 259 FIRs lodged across various districts due to the society's failure to honor payments amid a recession. These cases were seen as having a shared cause of action.

Findings of Court:
The high number of cases against the petitioner impeded a timely trial, necessitating consolidation of proceedings to secure the accused's rights and uphold the ends of justice.

Issues: The main questions were regarding the viability of multiple FIRs for the same cause of action and the impact on the accused's right to a speedy trial.

Ratio Decidendi: The court decisively determined that consolidating trials was essential to prevent undue harassment of the accused and to ensure justice was served fairly and promptly.

Result: Petition allowed; cases consolidated for efficient trial.

Table of Content
1. overview of the petitioner's case and charges. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. petitioner's plea for consolidation of trials. (Para 4 , 5)
3. government's acknowledgment of procedural difficulties. (Para 6 , 8)
4. court's consideration of submissions by counsel. (Para 7)
5. need for expedient and fair trial. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
6. discussion on the right to a speedy trial. (Para 14 , 15 , 16)
7. implications of prolonged detention on justice. (Para 17 , 18 , 19)
8. accused's rights regarding trial presence. (Para 20 , 21)
9. court's power to ensure fair trial and manage cases. (Para 22 , 23)
10. order for consolidation of trials across districts. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27)
11. legal provisions supporting case consolidation. (Para 28 , 29)
12. court's final decision and orders. (Para 30 , 31 , 32)

ORDER :

BY THE COURT:-

1. The instant Criminal Writ Petition has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner/accused of a case, seeking the indulgence of this Court for issuance of certain directions for conducting consolidation of trials in the matter filed against the petitioner facing charges of cheating, misappropriation of property, criminal conspiracy along with some other charges.

2. Briefly stating, the facts of the case as narrated in the petition are that the petitioner was a chairperson of Sanjivani Credit Cooperative Society registered as a Multi-Level Cooperative Society in the year 2010 under the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002. The society carried out its operations in various States including the State of Rajasthan and was operative without any default or glitch. Thousands of investors/depositors/members were registered from various parts of the State and even from the other States. According to the petitioner, due to the worldwide recession in 2019, the society failed to honor some of its payments to investors, and in the same context, some of the investors raised issues regarding non-payment of their dues and also alleged mismanagement and misappropriation of funds of the society. Upon which after a preliminary enquiry got conducted by the Additional Superintendent of Police, SOG an FIR came to be registered on 23/08/2019 at Police Station, S.O.G, Jaipur.

3. Subsequent to the lodging of the FIR by SOG, a news had pervaded among the investors and people related to the petitioner or his company and thus incited with the above, there came a flood of lodging of FIR’s by different people at different places across the State of Rajasthan and beyond the state boundaries. Till date around 259 criminal cases have been registered against the petitioner by way of lodging FIR’s at different places however the cause of action, truth, substance, nature of the transaction, the act of the accused, and nature of allegation & charge in all the cases are the same or identical and the only difference was that cases were lodged by different people at different places. The society has business spread over various States of the Country and is also involved in transactions with various shareholders, depositors, and investors running into large amounts of money therefore, it has resulted in the registration of numerous FIR’s on the ground that the society was not able to honor the assurance of repayment to the depositors when it became due. It is also a fact that in the State of Rajasthan itself, several FIR’s were lodged against the petitioner as well the Society in various districts and continued to be registered by individual investors even though after registration of the FIR by SOG, the petitioner has been taken into custody and the operation of the society have been restrained and thus incapacitating him to make payments to the depositors whose payment became due thereafter.

4. As per the facts mentioned above in this present Writ Petition the petitioner is accused in several cases based on multiple FIR’s under alleged offences of cheating, criminal breach of trust, forgery, criminal conspiracy, and other offences under Section

                                              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