Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Prakash Shrivastava and Virender Singh,JJ.
Pawan Tamrakar (Dr.) & Another v. M. P. Special Police Establishment & Others
Writ Petition No. 7496 of 2021 (Jabalpur);
Decided on 8.6.2021
(1) Criminal P.C. 1973 -- S. 154 -- multiple FIRs -- consolidating or clubbing FIRs -- no straightjacket formula -- Courts required to examine facts of each case -- second FIR in respect of same offence or different offence committedin course of same transaction -- not permissible -- second FIR on basis of receipt of information in respect of same cognizable offence or same occurrence or incident giving rise to one or more cognizable offence -- not permissible -- Courts required to draw balance between fundamental rights of citizens under Arts. 19 & 21 of Constitution and expansive power of police to investigate cognizable offence -- FIRs based upon separate incidents or similar or different offences -- or subsequent crime of such magnitude that it does not fall within ambit and scope of earlier FIR -- second FIR can be registered - two incidents took place at different points of time -- or involve different person -- or there is no commonality, purpose thereof different and circumstances also different -- there can be more than one FIR -- Court required to see circumstances of given case indicating proximity of time, unity or proximity of case, continuity of action, commonality of purpose of crime to ascertain if more than one FIR can be allowed to stand -- subsequent FIRs for different offences committed in course of same transaction or offences arising as consequence of prior offence -- not permissible -- second complaint in regard to same incident filed as counter complaint, as also second FIR for same nature of offence against same accused persons lodged by different person or containing different allegation -- permissible. (2001) 6 SCC 181, (2004) 13 SCC 292, (2006) 1 SCC 732, (2009) 1 SCC 441, (2010) 12 SCC 254, (2013) 6 SCC 348, (2010) 9 SCC 567, (2016) 3 SCC 8, (2018) 1 SCC 330 and (2017) 8 SCC 1 followed. 2020 (4) JLJ 623 (SC) distinguished (2020) SCC Online SC 460 referred to. W. P. No. 21487 of 2018 decided on 11.12.2018 (Hyd.) relied on. [Paras 7 & 18]
(2) Constitution of India -- Art. 226 -- Criminal P. C., 1973 -- S. 154-Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss. 120B, 409, 420, 467 and 468 -- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 -- S. 13 (1) (d) and 13 (2) -- multiple FIRs --consolidating or clubbing FIRs -- petitioners allegedly submitted forged list of students of SC, ST and OBC category in respect of different courses -- details of students in each category and course different -- amount involved in respect of each category and course different -- witnesses different -- not same offences or offences in same transaction -- subsequent FIRs do notarise as consequence of allegations made in first FIR -- test of 'sameness' and test of 'consequence' not satisfied -- that apart, action for clubbing FIRs taken at belated stage when investigation complete
-- no relief can be granted -- petitioners have remedy to pray before trial Court for common trial u/s. 220 of CrPC -- petition dismissed. (1986) 4 SCC 566, (2011) 5 SCC 607 and AIR 1969 SC 329 followed. [Paras 19 to 21]
¼1½ naM çfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 & èkkjk 154 & vusd çFke bfÙkyk fji¨V¨Z dk lesdu ;k la;¨ftr fd;k tkuk & d¨Ã vifjorZuh; lw= ugha & U;k;ky;¨a }kjk çR;sd çdj.k d¢ rF;¨a dh ijh{kk fd;k tkuk visf{kr & ,d gh vijkèk d¢ lacaèk esa ;k ,d gh laO;ogkj d¢ vuqØe esa fd, x, fÒUu vijkèk d¢ laca/k esa f}rh; çFke bfÙkyk fji¨VZ & vuqKs; ugha & ,d gh laKs; vijkèk ;k ,d gh ÄVuk d¢ lacaèk esa çkIr tkudkjh d¢ vkèkkj ij vFkok ÄVuk ls mn~Òwr ,d ;k vfèkd laKs; vijkèk d¢ vkèkkj ij f}rh; çFke bfÙkyk fji¨VZ -- vuqKs; ugha & U;k;ky;¨a }kjk lafoèkku d¢ vuqPNsn 19 ,oa 21 d¢ vèkhu ukxfjd¨a d¢ ewy vfèkdkj¨a v©j laKs; vijkèk dk vUos"k.k djus dh iqfyl dh O;kid 'kfDr d¢ eè; larqyu cSBkuk visf{kr & çFke bfÙkyk fji¨ZV i`Fkd~ ÄVukv¨a vFkok le:i ;k fÒUu vijkèk¨a ij vkèkkfjr & i'pkr~orÊ vijkèk bl xq#Ro dk fd og iwoZrj çFke bfRryk fji¨VZ dh ifjfèk v©j O;kfIr esa ugha vkrk & f}rh; çFke bfRryk fji¨VZ jftLVªhÑr dh tk ldrh gS & n¨ ÄVuk,a i`Fkd~&i`Fkd~ le; ij ÄVh & ;k muesa fÒUu O;fDr varfoZfyr & ;k mUgsa d¨Ã lekurk ugha mudk ç;¨tu fÒUu rFkk ifjfLFkfr;ka Òh fÒUu & ,dkfèkd çFke bfRryk fji¨VZ g¨ ldrh gS & ;g vfÒfuf'pr lekurk ugha mudk ç;¨tu fÒUu rFkk ifjfLFkfr;ka Òh fÒUu&,dkfèkd çFke bfÙkyk fji¨VZ g¨ ldrh gS & ;g vfÒfuf'pr djus d¢ fy, fd ,d ls vfèkd çFke bfRryk fji¨VZ fLFkj j[kh tk ldrh gS ;k ugha U;k;ky; }kjk ml çdj.k dh og ifjfLFkfr;ka ns[kh tkuk visf{kr ftuls le; dh vuarjrk] çdj.k dh ,dkRedrk ;k vuarjrk] dk;Z dh fujarjrk] vijkèk d¢ ç;¨tu dh lekurk minf'kZr g¨ & ,d gh laO;ogkj d¢ vuqØe esa fd, x, fÒUu vijkèk¨a d¢ fy, ;k iwoZrj vijkèk d¢ ifj.kkeLo:i mn~Òwr vijkèk¨a d¢ fy, i'pkr~orÊ çFke bfRryk fji¨VsZ & vuqKs; ugha & ,d gh ÄVuk d¢ ckjs esa çfr&ifjokn d¢ :i esa Qkby fd;k x;k f}rh; ifjokn rFkk mUgha vfÒ;qDr O;fDr;¨a d¢ fo#) mlh çÑfr d¢ vijkèk d¢ fy, fÒUu O;fDr }kjk ;k fÒUu vfÒdFku lfgr nkf[ky dh xà f}rh; çFke bfÙkyk fji¨VZ Òh & vuqKs;A ¼2001½ 6 ,l lh lh 181] ¼2004½ 13 ,l lh lh 292] ¼2006½ 1 ,l lh lh 732] ¼2009½ 1 ,l lh lh 441] ¼2010½ 12 ,l lh lh 254] ¼2013½ 6 ,l lh lh 348] ¼2010½ 9 ,l lh lh 567] ¼2016½ 3 ,l lh lh 8 ¼2018½ 1 ,l lh lh 330 rFkk ¼2017½ 8 ,l lh lh 1 vuqlfjrA 2020 ¼4½ ts ,y ts 623 ¼mPpre U;k;ky;½ çÒsfnrA ¼2020½ ,l lh lh vkWuykbu ,l lh 460 fufnZ"VA fjV ;kfpdk Øekad 21487 lu~ 2018 fu.kÊr fnukad 11-12-2018 ¼gSnjkckn½ voyafcrA ¼iSjk 7 ,oa 18½
¼2½ Òkjr dk lafoèkku & vuqPNsn 226 & naM çfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 & èkkjk 154 & naM lafgrk] 1860 & èkkjk 120[k] 409] 420] 467 rFkk 468 & Òz"Vkpkj fuokj.k vfèkfu;e] 1988 & èkkjk 13¼1½ ¼Ä½ rFkk 13¼2½ & vusd çFke bfRryk fji¨VsZ & çFke bfRryk fji¨V¨Z dk lesdu ;k la;¨ftr fd;k tkuk & ;kphx.k us vfÒdfFkr :i ls fÒUu&fÒUu ikB~;Øe¨a d¢ lacaèk esa vuqlwfpr tkfr] vuqlwfpr tutkfr v©j vU; fiNM+s oxZ d¢ Nk=¨a dh dwVjfpr lwph tek dh & çR;sd oxZ v©j ikB~;Øe esa Nk=¨a dk C;©jk fÒUu & çR;sd oxZ v©j ikB~;Øe ls lacafèkr varoZfyr jde fÒUu & lk{kh fÒUu & ,d gh vijkèk ;k ,d gh laO;ogkj d¢ vijkèk ugha & i'pkr~orÊ çFke bfRryk fji¨VsZ igyh çFke bfÙkyk fji¨VZ esa fd, x, vfÒdFku¨a d¢ ifj.kkeLo:i mn~Òwr ugha & ^lekurk^ d¢ ijh{k.k rFkk ^ifj.kke^ d¢ ijh{k.k dh rqf"V ugha g¨rh & bld¢ vfrfjDr] çFke bfÙkyk fji¨VZ la;¨ftr djus d¢ fy, dkjZokà foyafcr çØe ij dh xÃ] tc vUos"k.k iw.kZ g¨ x;k & d¨Ã vuqr¨"k ugha fn;k tk ldrk & ;kphx.k d¨ naM çfØ;k lafgrk dh èkkjk 220 d¢ vèkhu lefUor fopkj.k d¢ fy, fopkj.k U;k;ky; d¢ le{k çkFkZuk djus dk mipkj miyCèk & ;kfpdk [kkfjtA ¼1986½ 4 ,l lh lh 566] ¼2011½ 5 ,l lh lh 607 rFkk , vkb vkj 1969 ,l lh 329 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 19 ls 21½
ORDER
Shrivastava, J. -- 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the FIR in Crime Nos.99/2015, 100/2015, 101/2015, 148/2015, 149/2015, 150/2015, 151/2015, 152/2015, 195/2015, 196/2015, 197/2015 and 198/15 and have made a further prayer for consolidating the above FIRs and clubbing them with Crime No.98/15.
2. FIR in Crime No.98/2015 dated 31.3.2015 has been registered in Special Police Establishment Bhopal for commission of offence under section 120-B, 409, 420, 467, 468 of the IPC and section 13 (1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The allegation against the petitioners is that while working in different capacities in Genius Paramedical Institute, Pagara Road, Sagar, the petitioners had submitted the forged list of the students and had claimed scholarship amount. The impugned FIRs have been registered containing similar allegations in respect of different courses run by the Institute.
3. Shri Anil Khare, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that all the FIRs are based upon the same preliminary enquiry; they relate to the same academic year and based upon the same cause of action, therefore all the impugned FIRs should be consolidated and clubbed with the FIR No.98/2015. He further submits that no student has filed the complaint but it is the Lokayukta which has filed the FIR. He has also submitted that in respect of the similar incident by the other insitutes only one single FIR has been lodged. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Dr. Jerryl Banait v. Union of India and another reported in (2020) SCC Online SC 460, Arnab Ranjan Goswami v. Union of India and others reported in (2020) 14 SCC 12, Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. Central Bureau of Investigation and another reported in (2013) 6 SCC 348 and T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala and others reported in (2001) 6 SCC 181.
4. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the writ petition submitting that the petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay itself as the FIRs were registered more than five years back and the investigation is complete and challan will be filed in a shortwhile. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of State of M.P. & others v. Nandlal Jaiswal & others reported in (1986) 4 SCC 566, Shankara Cooperative Housing Society Limited v. M. Prabhakar and others reported in (2011) 5 SCC 607 and Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Balwant Regular Motor Service, Amaravati and others reported in AIR 1969 SC 329. He further submits that the separate FIRs have been registered for different courses run by the institute and for different reserved category of students, on the basis of caste and course of students. He has also submitted that the witnesses in each case are different. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (2017) 8 SCC 1 (State of Jharkhand v. Lalu Prasad Yadav) and also the judgment of High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad dated 11.12.2018 passed in WP. No.21487/2018.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Before entering into the facts of this case, we deem it proper to examine the law relating to the clubbing or consolidation of the FIRs. section 154 of the CrPC provides for registration of the FIR on the basis of the information relating to the commission of cognizable offences. section 155 of CrPC provides for recording of such information in respect of non-cognizable offences. section 169 and 170 of the CrPC provide for the course of action on completion of investigation i.e. to release the accused when evidence is deficient or to send the case to Magistrate when evidence is suffi
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.
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
