Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Ramesh Sinha, Saroj Yadav, JJ.
Ram Parvesh Yadav – Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. Thru.Secy. Home, Lucknow & Ors. – Respondents
Misc. Bench No. 23080 of 2021
Decided On : 07-10-2021
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 156/157, 169/170, 173(2), 154, 155, 220, 219, 300 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 20(2), Article 14, Article 19 (1)(a), Articles 19 and 21 - Information in cognizable cases – Equality before Law - Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech - Protection of life and liberty - Petitioner is also seeking a writ of Mandamus directing respondents that if petitioner is arrested in connection with any criminal case, arising out of First Information Reports, involved in cases, arresting officer shall release him on bail on executing a Bail Bond to satisfaction of Investigating Officer - Whether both FIRs relate to same incident in respect of same occurrence or are in regard to incidents which are two or more parts of same transaction.
Findings of the court :
It is pertinent to mention here that had the separate FIRs been registered in respect of same category then it could be said to be a case of multiple FIRs for same offence but that is not so in case as different FIRs are for different category of employees and for different occasions and there is no repetition of FIR for same occasion - Thus, it is settled that subsequent FIRs for different offences committed in course of same transaction or offences arising as a consequence of prior offence is not permissible but second complaint in regard to same incident filed as a counter complaint as also second FIR for same nature of offence against same accused persons lodged by different persons or containing different allegations is permissible - It is relevant to add here that nothing has been pointed out to refute submission of counsel for State that even witnesses in each of case are different - Though different FIRs reveal that same kind of offence has been registered against petitioner but they are for irregularities in recruitment of different posts - Subsequent FIRs do not arise as a consequence of allegations made in first FIR. Hence, test of 'sameness' and test of 'consequence' is not satisfied in case.
Result : Writ petition dismissed
JUDGMENT :
Ramesh Sinha, J.
1. In this petition, the petitioner, Ram Pravesh Yadav, is seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consolidate all First Information Reports registered against him for the purposes of investigation, enquiry and trial. The details of cases pending against the writ petitioner are as under :-
| Sr. No | FIR & Date of Registration of FIR | Place of Registration of FIR | Section | Date of Offence | Name of Complainant | Accused |
| 01 | FIR No. 0013 of 2020
27.10.2020 | P.S. S.I.T.
District Lucknow | 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C. | From 01.04.12 to 31.03.17 | Inspector Sri Rajul Garg | (1) Hira Lal Yadav
(2) Ravi Kant Singh
(3) Ramjatan Yadav
(4) Rakesh Kumar Mishra
(5) Santosh Kumar Srivastava
(6) Ram Pravesh Yadav
(7) Other officer and employees of UP Cooperative Institution Service Mandal Lucknow
(8) Other officer and employees of the Managing Committee and Bank of U.P. Cooperative Bank |
| 02 | 0021 of 2021
21.05.2021 | P.S. S.I.T.
District Lucknow | 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 204, 120-B I.P.C. | From 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2017 | Inspector Kunwar Brahm Prakash Singh | (1) Ram Jatan Yadav
(2) Rakesh Kumar Mishra
(3) Santosh Kumar Srivastava
(4) Ram Pravesh Yadav
(5) Other officer and employees of UP Cooperative Institution Service Mandal Lucknow |
| 03 | 022 of 2021
21.05.2021 | P.S. S.I.T.
District Lucknow | 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 204, 120-B I.P.C. | From 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2017 | Inspector Kunwar Braham Prakash Singh | (1) Ram Jatan Yadav
(2) Rakesh Kumar Mishra
(3) Santosh Kumar Srivastava
(4) Ram Pravesh Yadav
(5) Narad Yadav
(6) Sudish Kumar
(7) the then officer of the Managing Committee of U.P. Co-operative Village Development Bank Ltd. Lucknow.
(8) the officer and employees of the U.P. Cooperative Village Development Bank Ltd. Lucknow and U.P. Cooperative Institution Service Board, Lucknow. |
| 04 | 0023 of 2021
21.05.2021 | P.S. S.I.T.
District Lucknow | 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 204, 120-B I.P.C. | From 01.1.2015 to 31.12.2016 | Inspector Kunwar Braham Prakash Singh | (1) Ram Jatan Yadav
(2) Rakesh Kumar Mishra
(3) Santosh Kumar Srivastava
(4) Ram Pravesh Yadav
(5) the officer and employees of the U.P. Co-operative Institution Service Board, Lucknow. |
| 05 | 0024 of 2021
21.05.2021 | P.S. S.I.T.
District Lucknow | 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 204, 120-B I.P.C. | From 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2017 | Inspector Kunwar Braham Prakash Singh | (1) Ram Jatan Yadav
(2) Rakesh Kumar Mishra
(3) Santosh Kumar Srivastava
(4) Ram Pravesh Yadav
(5) the officer and employees of the U.P. Co-operative Institution Service Board, Lucknow. |
| 06 | 0025 of 2021
21.05.2021 | P.S. S.I.T.
District Lucknow | 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 204, 120-B I.P.C. | From 01.01.2016 to 31.12.2017 | Inspector Kunwar Braham Prakash Singh | (1) Ram Jatan Yadav
(2) Rakesh Kumar Mishra
(3) Santosh Kumar Srivastava
(4) Ram Pravesh Yadav
(5) the officer and employees of the U.P. Co-operative Institution Service Board, Lucknow. |
2. In addition, the petitioner is also seeking a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents that if the petitioner is arrested in connection with any criminal case, arising out of the First Information Reports, involved in the present cases, the arresting officer shall release him on bail on executing a Bail Bond to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.
3. It transpires from the record that vide Government Order dated 27.04.2018 (Annexure No.7), the Secretary (Home), Government of U.P., Lucknow, had entrusted the enquiry to the Special Investigating Team (S.I.T.) in respect of the recruitment made between 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2017 in Co-operative Department and its
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....
Multiple FIRs arising from the same transaction are impermissible and must be consolidated for a fair investigation.
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.
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
