IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
GANESH RAM MEENA, J.
Priyanka Modi W/o Vaibhav Lodha - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan, through PP - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 560/2024
Decided on : 19-03-2025
(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Criminal Procedure Code - Section 482 - Writ petition for quashing FIRs and clubbing investigations - Petitioners sought to quash subsequent FIRs related to a cooperative society's alleged financial misconduct, arguing they should be treated as supplementary to the main FIR - The court emphasized the need for a unified investigation to avoid conflicting outcomes and ensure justice. (Paras 1, 3, 31)
(B) FIRs - Clubbing of FIRs - The court recognized that multiple FIRs arising from the same cause of action should ideally be investigated by a single agency to prevent fragmentation and ensure thoroughness. (Paras 5, 30)
(C) Investigative Authority - The court directed that all FIRs related to the cooperative society's transactions be investigated by the Special Operations Group (SOG) under a senior officer's supervision to maintain consistency and accountability. (Paras 31)
(D)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the subsequent FIRs were interconnected and should be investigated collectively to uphold the integrity of the legal process. (Paras 30, 31) (E)
Result: The petition was partly allowed, directing the SOG to conduct a unified investigation into the related FIRs. (Paras 31)
JUDGMENT :
1. This present criminal writ petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. in terms of the leave and liberty granted by the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 04.03.2024 passed in D.B. CWP No.5751/2021; seeking reliefs to the tune of quashing of FIRs and/or clubbing of FIRs and investigations, registered subsequent to the FIR No.24/2018 at PS SOG, Jaipur dated 28.12.2018; and direct these FIRs to be treated as supplementary charge-sheet in case no. CR.REG.Case 104/2019 titled ‘State of Rajasthan Vs. Virendra Modi & Ors.’ arising out of the said FIR.
2. Brief facts of the case borne out from the pleadings and as are relevant for the consideration of the matter are as follows:
(i) In the year 1999, ACCSL was established and registered as a co-operative society with the Registrar of Societies, Rajasthan at its head office at Sirohi, Rajasthan.
ACCSL was established with the primary objective of promoting the interests of its members to attenuate their social and economic betterment through self-help and mutual aid, inter alia by way of accepting deposits from its members and granting loans.
In the month of February 2008, ACCSL, was registered as a Multi-State Cooperative Society by conversion under the provisions of the Multi-State Co-operative Society Act, 2002, thereby extending its operation to the states of Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh.
By the year 2017, ACCSL had established approximately 800 branches in 23 States and Union Territories in India with15,00,000 members and 3,70,000 advisors.
On 20.6.2018, Union of India through The Ministry of Corporate Affairs vide an order dated 20.6.2018, ordered SFIO to investigate Adarsh Group of Companies & LLP u/S 212(1)(c) of the Companies Act r/w S 43(2) & 3(c)(i) of the LLP Act.
(ii) On 6.12.2018, various correspondences transpired between SFIO and the Central Registrar Societies (Ministry of Agri, GOI), the latter being the authority over ACCSL under the MSCS Act. Consequently, the Central Registrar Societies ordered the winding up of ACCSL and appointed (Retd.) IAS Shri. H.S Patel as the official Liquidator and thereupon day to day affairs & control was taken over by the Liquidator.
(iii) SFIO investigated the loanee companies of ACCSL and since it has no power to investigate a society, Respondent No. 2, SOG registered an FIR No. 24/2018 dated 28.12.2018 u/s 120-B, 420, 406, 409, 467, 468, 471, 477A of IPC wherein SOG chose to investigate into the entire amount of Rs. 12,414 Cr. siphoned from more than 20 Lac investors of ACCSL. FIR registered by the SOG encompasses all transactions made by ACCSL pan India and therefore, automatically subsumes within itself all the pending investigations/inquiries or complaints filed. SOG had registered FIR no. 24/2018 pursuant to an alleged complaint of one member investor, Mrs. Neha Manohar whose principal investment amount was Rs. 12.5 Lacs. Further, Ms. Neha Manohar alleged that she had learnt that the present-petitioners had illegally embezzled/siphoned off the deposits of all investors in shell companies and thereby committed fraud with the investors.
Neha Manohar's alleged complaint on 28.12.2018 was limited to her investment amounting to 12.5 Lacs but SOG chose to investigate the alleged siphoned amount of Rs. 12,414 Crores from more than 20 lac investors of ACCSL.
(iv) SOG on the basis of such allegation of siphoning of funds, registered the FIR no. 24/2018 under various sections of IPC, IT Act, Banning Act 1978 etc. for investigation of siphoning of the funds received as investment amounting to Rs. 12,414 Crore from 20 Lakh investors across India. It is pertinent to mention here that this fact underlines the position that complete controversy including but not limited to the larger conspiracy involving multiple investors in the matter has been investigated by the SOG.
Consequently, SOG has vehemently included within its sweep and ambit investments
The court emphasized the necessity of clubbing related FIRs for a unified investigation to prevent conflicting outcomes and ensure justice.
Multiple FIRs alleging identical offences cannot be consolidated if they arise from distinct transactions involving different complainants and evidence.
The court ruled that multiple FIRs against the same individual, based on distinct allegations, cannot be clubbed for investigation, emphasizing the need for thorough investigation into serious econom....
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 ruled against the clubbing of FIRs from multiple States citing unique factual circumstances in each case, which undermines practical consolidation.
Permitting multiple parallel criminal investigations for the same occurrence violates established procedural law. A unified investigation prevents institutional conflict, ensures judicial consistency....
The court emphasized the necessity of clubbing FIRs to ensure a fair trial and reduce judicial burden, affirming its discretion under the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act and Bharatiya Nagarik Su....
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....
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.