Multiple FIRs With Distinct Causes Cannot Be Clubbed/Quashed Solely on Political Motive Claims Without Specific Mala Fides Proof: Rajasthan HC (S.482 CrPC/S.528 BNSS) - 2025-05-01

Legal Articles | Court & Judgment Updates

Rajasthan High Court Rejects Ex-Minister's Plea to Quash or Club Multiple FIRs, Cites Distinct Causes of Action

Jaipur , May 1, 2025: The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur , has dismissed a batch of petitions filed by former state minister Pramod Jain Bhaya and others seeking the quashing or consolidation of thirteen First Information Reports (FIRs) registered against them across various police stations in the Baran district. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sameer Jain ruled that the FIRs, alleging offences ranging from illegal mining and forgery to misappropriation, pertain to distinct causes of action and cannot be clubbed merely on allegations of political motivation.

Case Overview

The petitions, led by S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 7852/2024, involved former MLA and minister Pramod Jain Bhaya , his relatives, friends, and associates. They sought directions under Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS) to quash the FIRs, arguing they were politically motivated following Bhaya 's electoral defeat in 2023 and the subsequent change in government. Alternatively, they requested the FIRs be clubbed and investigated jointly by a single IPS officer outside the Baran and Jhalawar districts, alleging a lack of faith in local police impartiality.

Petitioners' Arguments

Senior Counsel Mr. Madhav Mitra, representing the petitioners, argued: * The FIRs were registered sequentially after the 2023 Assembly elections due to political vendetta by the new ruling party. * The allegations in the FIRs (including illegal mining, tender manipulation, fraudulent land allotment pattas , and financial irregularities) were vague, absurd, improbable, and actuated by mala fides. * Complainants in several FIRs were allegedly supporters of the ruling party, influencing local police. * There was a genuine apprehension of biased investigation, necessitating either quashing or a unified, independent probe by a senior officer in a different district. * Reliance was placed on precedents like Bhajan Lal and T.T. Antony to argue for quashing mala fide FIRs and preventing multiple FIRs on the same facts.

State's and Complainants' Counter-Arguments

Additional Advocate General Mr. Manoj Sharma, representing the State, and counsel for the complainants argued: * The petitioners' pleas were contradictory – seeking both quashing and unified investigation. * Each FIR involved distinct facts, complainants, offences (illegal mining, forgery, land scams, etc.), dates, and locations, negating the possibility of clubbing under the 'sameness' doctrine. * No specific allegations of mala fides were made against any individual investigating officer to warrant a transfer of investigation. * Petitioners were allegedly not cooperating with the investigation despite interim protection from coercive action. * Petitioners bypassed alternative remedies available under the CrPC (like approaching senior police officers or the Magistrate) before invoking the High Court's inherent jurisdiction. * The accused cannot dictate the investigating agency or officer, as per Romila Thapar .

Court's Analysis and Findings

Justice Sameer Jain meticulously analyzed the arguments and the legal position:

On Clubbing FIRs: The Court found that the FIRs concerned distinct allegations, witnesses, documents, and causes of action. > "A careful perusal of the record reveals that the impugned FIRs are registered, each concerning distinct and independent allegations... These FIRs are not interconnected by a common thread of fact, transaction, or occurrence. Hence, the doctrine of sameness... is not applicable... Therefore, the prayer for clubbing of FIRs is without legal foundation and is accordingly rejected." (Para 27)

On Transfer of Investigation: The Court noted the absence of specific allegations of mala fides against any investigating officer. > "The petitions do not allege any specific malafides or bias against any named Investigating Officer... The law requires that for an allegation of malafide to be sustained, it must be pleaded with specificity and supported by material facts." (Para 29) > Citing Romila Thapar , the Court reiterated: "The accused has no locus standi to dictate or choose the Investigating Officer, unless the process is vitiated by apparent bias or illegality." (Para 30)

On Quashing FIRs: The Court refused to quash the FIRs at this nascent stage, citing the seriousness of the allegations (economic offences), the contradictory nature of the reliefs sought, and the availability of alternative remedies. > "This Court is not inclined to accept the contention that the FIRs are baseless or actuated by malafides, nor does it find sufficient grounds to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (Section 528 BNSS) to quash the same where allegations are yet to be tested by a full and fair investigation." (Para 32) > The Court emphasized the principle laid down in Sakiri Vasu regarding exhausting statutory remedies before approaching the High Court under Section 482 CrPC. (Para 33)

The Court distinguished precedents cited by petitioners like Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah , noting those involved FIRs arising from the same transaction and were approached at a later stage (post-charge-sheet).

Final Decision

The High Court dismissed the entire batch of petitions, rejecting the prayers for quashing, clubbing, and transfer of investigation. However, in the interest of justice, the Court directed: * The petitioners must cooperate and join the investigation in each FIR within ten days. * Investigating authorities must conduct a fair, impartial investigation strictly according to law, considering materials submitted by the petitioners.

The ruling underscores that allegations of political motivation alone are insufficient to quash or consolidate multiple FIRs if they arise from distinct causes of action, and specific evidence of bias is required to justify transferring investigations.