08.06.2021

Per: Prakash Shrivastava, J.

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 31.03.2015 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

4

the Supreme Court in the matter of Dr. Jerryl Banait vs. Union

of India and another reported in (2020) SCC Online SC 460,

Arnab Ranjan Goswami vs. Union of India and others

reported in (2020) 14 SCC 12, Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah

vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another reported in

(2013) 6 SCC 348 and T.T. Antony Vs. 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 vs. Nandlal Jaiswal & others

reported in (1986) 4 SCC 566, Shankara Cooperative

Housing Society Limited vs. M. Prabhakar and others

reported in (2011) 5 SCC 607 and Maharashtra State Road

Transport Corporation vs. 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 vs. 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.

5

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 Cr.P.C. provides

for registration of the FIR on the basis of the information

relating to the commission of cognizable offences. Section 155

of Cr.P.C. provides for recording of such information in respect

of non-cognizable offences. Section 169 and 170 of the Cr.P.C.

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 sufficient. Section 173

of the Cr.P.C. requires the police