,,,,,
Sandeep N. Bhatt,,,,,
1. The present petition, under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 197, is preferred",,,,,
by the applicant â€" original accused for direction :- (i) to prosecute the petitioner only under one prosecution treating the first FIR registered with the,,,,,
DCB Police Station, Ahmedabad City on 07.08.2023 and the charge-sheet filed thereunder, which is culminated into Criminal Case No.115700 of 2023",,,,,
and all other charge-sheets / FIRs be treated as supplementary charge-sheet, (ii) to restrain the trial Court from framing the charge in connection with",,,,,
Criminal Cases No.115700 of 2023 & 7482 of 2024 pending before the 11th Additional Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Ahmedabad, Criminal Case",,,,,
No.122886 of 2023 pending before the 9th Additional Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Ahmedabad, (iii) to restrain the Investigating Officer in",,,,,
connection with the C.R. No.11191005230229 of 2023 registered with the Khadia Police Station, Ahmedabad from filing the charge-sheet before the",,,,,
competent Court and (iv) to restrain the learned trial Court from framing the charge in connection with Criminal Case No.61860 of 2024 pending,,,,,
before the 41th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmedabad City.",,,,,
2. Heard learned advocates.,,,,,
3.1 Learned senior advocate Mr. N.D. Nanavati with learned advocate Mr. Hriday Buch for learned advocate Mr.Nilay Patel for the petitioner has,,,,,
submitted that the FIRs in question, of the year 2023, are identical and the offences allegedly are also the same; and that in most of the FIRs, charge-",,,,,
sheets have been filed; and that the trial Court is also the same i.e. Metropolitan Magistrate Courts at Ahmedabad; and that the petitioner cannot be,,,,,
made to suffer different prosecutions on identical allegations; and that the loan transactions in question are of the year 2019 when the petitioner was,,,,,
the Chairman and the borrowers of the Colour Merchant Cooperative Bank have lodged the FIRs who have failed to repay the loan, that too after the",,,,,
bank initiates the proceedings for recovery in the year 2020-21; and that no further overt is attributed to the petitioner; and that the petitioner has not,,,,,
derived any monetary benefit out of the said loan transactions in question; and that the petitioner cannot be made to face identical prosecution; and,,,,,
that continuation with all the FIRs, charge-sheet and trials would amount to abuse of the statutory powers of investigation; and that it is a settle legal",,,,,
position that administrating criminal justice is two end process. The rights of the accused are to be guarded under the Constitution with the same zeal,,,,,
as ensuring justice to the victim; and that it is the duty of the Court to balance between the rights of the accused and wide power of the police to,,,,,
investigate a cognizable offence.,,,,,
3.2 He has further submitted that the identical FIRs are lodged and investigated by the police and all the cases pursuant to the said FIRs are to be tried,,,,,
under one territorial jurisdictional Magistrate i.e. Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad. He has submitted that as per the administrative",,,,,
convenience of the said Court, different police stations are assigned to different Courts. Therefore, though all FIRs are identical against the same set",,,,,
of accused and alleged identical offences, not only that the petitioner will have to face different prosecutions but it would be before different Presiding",,,,,
Officers which would prejudicially affect the right to defend himself; and that the petitioner may not be made to suffer multiple prosecutions in,,,,,
connection with identical FIRs.,,,,,
3.3 He has also submitted that the offences have occurred in the same bank having various branches within the city of Ahmedabad, however, the",,,,,
loans are sanctioned from the main branch at Astodia (Ahmedabad). He has submitted that the prosecution overlaps the informants and the witnesses,,,,,
in all the FIRs. Despite that, the same is lodged in different police stations within Ahmedabad City. He has submitted that the informants and the",,,,,
witnesses are all from Ahmedabad and the case rests entirely on the documentary evidence which is collected and forming part of all the charge-,,,,,
sheets.,,,,,
3.4 In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the following decisions :",,,,,
3.4.1 In the case of T.T. Antony versus State of Kerala reported in (2001) 6 SCC 181, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under :",,,,,
“On receipt of information about a cognizable offence for an incident giving rise to a cognizable offence or offence and on entering the,,,,,
FIR in the station house diary, the officer in-charge of a police station has to investigate not merely the cognizable offences reported in the",,,,,
FIR but also other connected offences found to have been committed and file one or more reports as provided in Section 173 of the,,,,,
Cr.P.C.â€,,,,,
3.4.2 In the case of Amit Anilchandra shah versus CBI reported in (2013) 6 SCC 348, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under :",,,,,
“A second FIR and a fresh charge-sheet for the alleged fake encounter of Tulsiram Prajapati being an outcome of one single conspiracy,,,,,
alleged to have been hatched in 2005, filing of second FIR and a fresh charge-sheet is contrary to the provisions of the Code. Only the",,,,,
earliest or the first information in regard to the commission of a cognizable offence satisfies the requirement of Section 154 of Cr.P.C.,,,,,
There can be no second FIR and consequently there can be no fresh investigation on receipt of every subsequent information in resepct of,,,,,
the same cognizable offences or the same occurrence giving rise to one or more cognizable offences.,,,,,
Pertinently, in the said case, an FIR was lodged for take encounter of one Sohrabuddin and his wife Kausarbi against various accused",,,,,
persons. Said killing happened on 26.11.2005. One witness â€" Tulsiram Prajapati had witnessed the said encounters who was shown to be,,,,,
arrested on 29.11.2005. Eventually, said witness Tulsiram Prajapati was also killed in a fake encounter on 18.12.2006. Therefore, there",,,,,
was a second FIR with regard to his killing. In such a case as well, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that all the encounters were part of",,,,,
the same conspiracy and therefore, there cannot be a second FIR and a further charge-sheet.â€",,,,,
3.4.3 In the case of Arnab Manoranjan Goswami versus Union of India reported in (2020) 14 SCC 12, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held",,,,,
as under :,,,,,
“Subjecting an individual to a numerous proceedings arising in a different jurisdiction on the basis of same cause of action cannot be,,,,,
accepted and it is not legitimate to prosecute. Multiple FIRs and complaints in several States and Union territories against the same accused,,,,,
for the same offence is impermissible.â€,,,,,
3.4.4 In the case of Abhishek Singh Chauhan versus Union of India reported in (2022) 4 RCR (Criminal) 42, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has",,,,,
held as under :,,,,,
“The petitioner cannot be subjected to different FIRs in different States as multiplicity of proceedings will not be a larger public interest,,,,,
and all the FIRs and criminal cases are ordered to be clubbed State-wise.â€,,,,,
3.4.5 In the case of Radheshyam versus State of Haryana â€" Writ Petition (Criminal) No.75 of 2020, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held",,,,,
as under :,,,,,
“Multiplicity of proceedings will not be in larger public interest and therefore, all criminal cases need to be merged / clubbed. The",,,,,
charge-sheets filed in case of subsequent FIRs would also be transferred / merged / clubbed with the principal case and be treated as,,,,,
supplementary charge-sheet.â€,,,,,
3.5 He has submitted that the prayer to prosecute the accused persons under one prosecution treating the first FIR registered with the DCB Police,,,,,
Station, Ahmedabad on 07.08.2023 and the charge-sheet filed thereunder resulting in Criminal Case No.115700 of 2023 and all other criminal cases",,,,,
arising from different charge-sheet be treated as supplementary charge-sheet and all criminal cases be clubbed and tried together, may kindly be",,,,,
granted.,,,,,
4.1 Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. C.M. Shah for the State has vehemently opposed this petition and has submitted that all the FIRs lodged,,,,,
against the petitioner are in different police stations as the incidents are different and there are substantial difference between all the FIRs; and that,,,,,
the FIRs are from different branches of the bank; and that the accused are different, but the petitioner is common in all the FIRs; and that qua most of",,,,,
the FIRs, investigation is over and charge-sheets are also filed before the competent criminal Court having jurisdiction; and that the witnesses are",,,,,
different in the FIRs; and that transactions are different; and that the loan accounts are different; and that loan amounts are different; and that loan,,,,,
branches of the bank are different; and that complainants are different; and that evidence are different. She has submitted that it cannot be said that,,,,,
the FIRs arose from the same transaction, incident and nature of evidence.",,,,,
4.2 She has also submitted that all the FIRs are lodged by the borrowers â€" consumers of the bank in difference areas of Ahmedabad City alleging,,,,,
that loan were sanctioned to their accounts, properties were mortgaged but they did not receive any amount.",,,,,
4.3 In support of her submissions, she has relied upon the following decisions :",,,,,
4.3.1 In the case of Sagar Hareshbhai Banawala versus State of Gujarat reported in 2023 (0) AIJEL-HC 248045 = 2024 (3) GLR 1707, more",,,,,
particularly Paras : 6.4, 6.6 and 6.7 thereof, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under :",,,,,
“6.4. Subsequent to the judgment in the case of Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah (supra), the Honble Apex Court has addressed the issue of",,,,,
the sameness of FIRs in various judgments. Relevant to the present case is the judgment cited by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor,,,,,
(APP) in the case of P. Shreekumar (supra), especially paragraph 33. It is crucial to consider this judgment in determining the legality of",,,,,
the second FIR. Para 33 of that judgment as under:,,,,,
33) It is for the reasons that firstly, the second FIR was not filed by the same person, who had filed the first FIR. Had it been so, then the",,,,,
situation would have been somewhat different. Such was not the case here; Second, it was filed by the appellant as a counter-complaint",,,,,
against respondent No.3; Third, the first FIR was against five persons based on one set of allegations whereas the second FIR was based on",,,,,
the allegations different from the allegations made in the first FIR; and Lastly, the High Court while quashing the second FIR/charge-sheet",,,,,
did not examine the issue arising in the case in the light of law laid down by this Court in two aforementioned decisions of this Court in the,,,,,
cases of Upkar Singh (supra) and Surender Kaushik (supra) and simply referred three decisions of this Court mentioned above wherein this,,,,,
Court has laid down general principle of law relating to exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code.,,,,,
6.6. It is also relevant to refer the judgment of the Honble Apex Court in the case of Chirag M. Pathk & Others versus Dollyben Kantilal &,,,,,
Others rendered in Criminal Appeal Nos.1947-1956 of 2017 (arising out of SLP (Cri.) Nos.1218-1227 of 2014) dated 15.11.2017, more",,,,,
specifically, paragraph 21 to 30 are relevant, as under :",,,,,
21) In short, having regard to the totality of the factual allegations made for constituting the commission of several offences in relation to",,,,,
every CoOperative Society, it is not possible to hold that all the FIRs are overlapping on one another and that first FIR alone will be",,,,,
sufficient to take care of the remaining five FIRs.,,,,,
22) There may be some overlapping allegations in the FIRs but that is due to myriad reasons and one reason could be that all the Co-,,,,,
operative Societies were engaged in the same business of sale/purchase of housing and the plots of land which were sold to different,,,,,
persons in different areas by same accused persons due to their involvement in the affairs of all Co-Operative Societies. However, these",,,,,
facts were not by themselves sufficient to quash the five FIRs at the stage of investigation itself.,,,,,
23) In our view, such issues and many more, namely, the nature and manner of conspiracy, whether it was confined to each Society or there",,,,,
was one or larger conspiracy, how and in what manner it was accomplished, who were parties to it, who were those persons who secured",,,,,
financial benefits, what was the modus operandi for mis-appropriation of the funds of each Society and how the funds were siphoned off",,,,,
from each Society etc., need detailed investigation with respect to each Cooperative Society. Once the investigation is complete in relation to",,,,,
each Society, the same would form part of the separate charge-sheet for being proved with the aid of evidence in a competent Court against",,,,,
each Society and persons involved in the scam. It is for the Court to examine the factual issues arising in every case by appreciating the,,,,,
evidence once adduced in support thereof and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.,,,,,
24) The High Court, in exercise of its powers under Section 482 of the Code, cannot undertake a detailed examination of the facts",,,,,
contained in the FIRs by acting as an Appellate Court and draws its own conclusion. It is more so when investigation in other Societies is,,,,,
not yet complete.,,,,,
25) In our considered opinion, it is only when on reading the FIR, a sheer absurdity in the allegations is noticed and when no prima facie",,,,,
cognizable case is made out on its mere reading due to absurdity in the allegations or when facts disclose prima facie cognizable case and,,,,,
also disclose remarkable identity between the two FIRs as if the first FIR is filed second time with no change in allegations then the Court,,,,,
may, in appropriate case, consider it proper to quash the second FIR. Such is not the case here.",,,,,
26) Indeed, in our view, few distinguishing factual allegations mentioned above are enough to repel the challenge made by the accused",,,,,
persons to the impugned FIRs and the same should have been made basis to dismiss the Criminal Applications of the accused persons.,,,,,
27) We may, at this stage, apposite to mention a Three Judge Bench decision of this Court in State of West Bengal & Ors. vs. Swapan Kumar",,,,,
Guha & Ors. (AIR 1982 SC 949 wherein this Court examined somewhat a similar question in the context of the powers of the Court.,,,,,
28) The learned Chief Justice, Y.V Chandrachud and Justice A.N. Sen, speaking for the Bench in their concurring opinion held as under:",,,,,
Whether an offence has been disclosed or not must necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each particular case. If on a,,,,,
consideration of the relevant materials, the Court is satisfied that an offence is disclosed, the Court will normally not interfere with the",,,,,
investigation into the offence and will generally allow the investigation in the offence to be completed for collecting materials for proving,,,,,
the offence. The condition precedent to the commencement of investigation under S.157 of the Code is that the F.I.R. must disclose, prima",,,,,
facie, that a cognizable offence has been committed. It is wrong to suppose that the police have an unfettered discretion to commence",,,,,
investigation under S.157 of the Code. Their right of inquiry is conditioned by the existence of reason to suspect the commission of a,,,,,
cognizable offence and they cannot, reasonably, have reason so to suspect unless the F.I.R., prima facie, discloses the commission of such",,,,,
offence. If that condition is satisfied, the investigation must go on. The Court has then no power to stop the investigation, for to do so would",,,,,
be to trench upon the lawful power of the police to investigate into cognizable offences.,,,,,
29) We apply the aforesaid principle which, in our opinion, applies to the facts of the case on hand and accordingly decline to quash the",,,,,
impugned FIRs.,,,,,
30) Learned counsel for the respondents (accused) however, vehemently tried to support the impugned judgment and took us through the",,,,,
entire factual allegations of all six FIRs. It was his submission that on perusal of the impugned FIRs, there does exist overlapping of the",,,,,
offences in the FIRs on identical allegations with no change in any of the six FIRs except repetition of the words and hence the High Court,,,,,
was right in quashing the five FIRs.,,,,,
6.7. Therefore, considering the fact that although the incident to some extent involved in the first FIR is also covered in the second FIR, the",,,,,
second FIR additionally reveals a conspiracy between the accused persons named in the later FIR. Hence, it cannot be concluded that the",,,,,
impugned FIR is in violation of the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution. On the contrary, considering the allegations, the accused",,,,,
persons involved, and the complainant, there exists a significant difference between the two FIRs. This distinction cannot be overlooked by",,,,,
exercising the powers under Section 482. Consequently, the present petition is required to be dismissed.â€",,,,,
4.3.2 In the case of Chirag M. Pathak & Others versus Dollyben Kantilal Patel & Others reported in (2018) 1 SCC 330 = 2017 (0) AIJEL-SC 61248,",,,,,
more particularly Paras : 18, 19, 21 to 30 thereof, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under :",,,,,
“18. We do not agree with the manner, reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the High Court in the impugned judgment.",,,,,
19. We find that all the six Co-Operative Societies against whom the afore-mentioned FIRs were registered are different, their members are",,,,,
different, their area of operation is different, the lands which were sold/transferred are also situated in different areas, the lands were also",,,,,
sold/transferred to different parties on different dates for different sums, the accounting books are different, the persons involved in the",,,,,
falsification of the accounts of every Society are different etc. etc.,,,,,
21. There may be some overlapping allegations in the FIRs but that is due to myriad reasons and one reason could be that all the Co-,,,,,
operative Societies were engaged in the same business of sale/purchase of housing and the plots of land which were sold to different,,,,,
persons in different areas by same accused persons due to their involvement in the affairs of all Co-Operative Societies. However, these",,,,,
facts were not by themselves sufficient to quash the five FIRs at the stage of investigation itself.,,,,,
22. In our view, such issues and many more, namely, the nature and manner of conspiracy, whether it was confined to each Society or there",,,,,
was one or larger conspiracy, how and in what manner it was accomplished, who were parties to it, who were those persons who secured",,,,,
financial benefits, what was the modus operandi for mis-appropriation of the funds of each Society and how the funds were siphoned off",,,,,
from each Society etc., need detailed investigation with respect to each Cooperative Society. Once the investigation is complete in relation to",,,,,
each Society, the same would form part of the separate charge-sheet for being proved with the aid of evidence in a competent Court against",,,,,
each Society and persons involved in the scam. It is for the Court to examine the factual issues arising in every case by appreciating the,,,,,
evidence once adduced in support thereof and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.,,,,,
23. The High Court, in exercise of its powers under Section 482 of the Code, cannot undertake a detailed examination of the facts",,,,,
contained in the FIRs by acting as an Appellate Court and draws its own conclusion. It is more so when investigation in other Societies is,,,,,
not yet complete.,,,,,
24. In our considered opinion, it is only when on reading the FIR, a sheer absurdity in the allegations is noticed and when no prima facie",,,,,
cognizable case is made out on its mere reading due to absurdity in the allegations or when facts disclose prima facie cognizable case and,,,,,
also disclose remarkable identity between the two FIRs as if the first FIR is filed second time with no change in allegations then the Court,,,,,
may, in appropriate case, consider it proper to quash the second FIR. Such is not the case here.",,,,,
25. Indeed, in our view, few distinguishing factual allegations mentioned above are enough to repel the challenge made by the accused",,,,,
persons to the impugned FIRs and the same should have been made basis to dismiss the Criminal Applications of the accused persons.,,,,,
26. We may, at this stage, apposite to mention a Three Judge Bench decision of this Court in State of West Bengal & Ors. vs. Swapan Kumar",,,,,
Guha & Ors. (AIR 1982 SC 949) wherein this Court examined somewhat a similar question in the context of the powers of the Court.,,,,,
27. The learned Chief Justice, Y.V Chandrachud and Justice A.N. Sen, speaking for the Bench in their concurring opinion held as under :",,,,,
66. Whether an offence has been disclosed or not must necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each particular case. If on a",,,,,
consideration of the relevant materials, the Court is satisfied that an offence is disclosed, the Court will normally not interfere with the",,,,,
investigation into the offence and will generally allow the investigation in the offence to be completed for collecting materials for proving,,,,,
the offence.,,,,,
“21. ...The condition precedent to the commencement of investigation under S.157 of the Code is that the F.I.R. must disclose, prima",,,,,
facie, that a cognizable offence has been committed. It is wrong to suppose that the police have an unfettered discretion to commence",,,,,
investigation under S.157 of the Code. Their right of inquiry is conditioned by the existence of reason to suspect the commission of a,,,,,
cognizable offence and they cannot, reasonably, have reason so to suspect unless the F.I.R., prima facie, discloses the commission of such",,,,,
offence. If that condition is satisfied, the investigation must go on. The Court has then no power to stop the investigation, for to do so would",,,,,
be to trench upon the lawful power of the police to investigate into cognizable offences.""",,,,,
28. We apply the aforesaid principle which, in our opinion, applies to the facts of the case on hand and accordingly decline to quash the",,,,,
impugned FIRs.,,,,,
29. Learned counsel for the respondents (accused) however, vehemently tried to support the impugned judgment and took us through the",,,,,
entire factual allegations of all six FIRs. It was his submission that on perusal of the impugned FIRs, there does exist overlapping of the",,,,,
offences in the FIRs on identical allegations with no change in any of the six FIRs except repetition of the words and hence the High Court,,,,,
was right in quashing the five FIRs.,,,,,
30. We are afraid to accept this submission of learned counsel for the respondents (accused). Having noticed few significant distinguishing,,,,,
features in six FIRs mentioned above, the submission has no merit.â€",,,,,
Sl. No.,"Name of Police
Station, FIR No.
with Date &
Time","Sections of
the IPC","N a m e of
Complainant &
Branch Name
of the Bank
where comp. is
holding A/c","N a m e s of
Accused",Status of the FIR
1.,"Anandnagar
Police Station
11191001230010
Dtd.: 13.01.2023
@ 19:45 hrs.","406, 409, 420,
465, 467, 468,
471 and
120B","Jayshriben
Shaileshbhai
Panchal &
Satellite Branch","Bimal
Dashrathbhai
Parikh & 3 ors.","Criminal Case
No.1519 of 2024
[SCR.A. No.
5923/2023
preferred by the
petitioner, where
the Coordinate
Bench of this
Court has
protected the
petitioner]
2.,"Naranpura Police
Station
11191034230159
Dtd.: 07.08.2023
@ 11:30 hrs.","406, 420, 465,
467, 468, 471,
120B and
506(1)","Hardikbhai
Amaratbhai
Patel & Raipur
Branch","Bimal
Dashrathbhai
Parikh & 7 ors.","Criminal Case
No.122886 of
2023 (on
argument stage)
[ T h e petitioner
has preferred
Discharge
Application before
the trial Court,
which is pending
for hearing]
3.,"D C B Police
Station,
Ahmedabad
11191011230216
Dtd.: 07.08.2023
@ 21:30 hrs.","406, 409, 420,
465, 467, 468,
471 and
120B","Nitinbhai
Narendrabh ai
Rajguru &
Satellite Branch","Bimal
Dashrathbhai
Parikh & 3 ors.","Criminal Case
No.115700 of
2023 (Charge is
framed)
4.,"Khadiya Police
Station
11191005230229
Dtd.: 09.08.2023
@ 17:15 hrs.","406, 420, 465,
467, 468, 471,
474 and
120B","Manojbhai
Nathulal
Vaishnav &
Raipur Branch","Bimal
Dashrathbhai
Parikh & 5 ors.","Criminal Case
No.61860 of 2024
(Charge is
framed) [SCR.A.
No. 11541/2023
preferred by the
petitioner is
pending for
admission]
5.,"DCB Police
Station,
Ahmedabad
11191011230277
Dtd.: 28.10.2023
@ 17:30 hrs.","406, 409, 420,
465, 467, 468,
471 and
120B","Atulbhai
Amrutlal Patel
& Astodia
Branch","Bimal
Dashrathbhai
Parikh & 3 ors.","Criminal Case
No.7482 of 2024
(Charge is
framed)
ÃThe trial is going on for one matter before the trial Court concerned.,,,,,
5.4 The practice of ""Clubbing of Investigations and Trials"" is a crucial aspect of our criminal justice system. It ensures efficiency and fairness, similar",,,,,
to a diligent shopper's checklist. This approach combines related cases, promoting judicial equity, resource efficiency, and streamlined administration of",,,,,
justice. It protects the rights of both the accused and the victims while optimizing the use of judicial resources for the broader benefit of society. By,,,,,
following legal provisions and precedents, our legal framework maintains the integrity of our justice system, preventing undue harassment and ensuring",,,,,
the effective delivery of justice. Clubbing investigations and trials are an excellent representation of the core principles of our democratic society,",,,,,
respecting individual rights and promoting the greater good through a more efficient legal process.,,,,,
5.5 Looking to the rival submissions of the parties as well as undisputed facts noted above and the factual position of the FIRs, that too when",,,,,
investigation is over, charge-sheets are filed, criminal cases are numbered and the trial Courts concerned have framed the charges, the issue before",,,,,
this Court for consideration would be that, “whether the petitioner be prosecuted under one prosecution, considering the first FIR and the",,,,,
proceedings arising therefrom, by clubbing the other FIRs/Criminal Cases as supplementary and be tried together or not.†Thus, it is divided into two",,,,,
parts; (i) to consider the first FIR and other FIRs be treated as supplementary and (ii) to club all the criminal trials.,,,,,
5.6.1 With regard to the question as to whether the first FIR should be considered as first and only and other FIRs should be treated as supplementary,,,,,
to the first FIR is concerned, this Court, from the record, finds that all the FIRs are registered in the month of January, August and October, 2023. The",,,,,
allegation in the FIRs is mainly for siphoning the public money from the bank in the name of the complainant/s and used the said money for their,,,,,
personal use, that too without knowledge of the complainant/s.",,,,,
Further, in most of the FIRs, the period of offence is mentioned between 2019 to 2023. The petitioner was a Chairman of the Bank for the period from",,,,,
February, 2019 to March, 2022. The FIRs are lodged in the year 2023. All the FIRs are lodged by the complainants, who are the private persons /",,,,,
borrowers, in whose names the loans are taken by the accused and transferred into other accounts, that too without the knowledge of the",,,,,
complainants. When the recovery proceedings are started under the SARFAESI Act, they came to know about it and therefore, the so-called loanee",,,,,
i.e. the complainants have lodged the FIRs. The FIRs are registered with the various police station which is but obvious as the complainants are,,,,,
residing in various areas of Ahmedabad City and having accounts with the various branches of the bank. In all the FIRs, the investigation is over,",,,,,
charge-sheet is filed, criminal cases are registered and charge is also framed by the trial Courts. In one of the trials, the trial is already commenced",,,,,
and is at the stage of argument. At this stage, the petitioner â€" original accused has approached this Court with the prayers noted above.",,,,,
Therefore, it would have been an altogether different circumstances if all the complaints, though they look same, would complain of an incident of a",,,,,
particular day. Every complaint varies in the period. As observed hereinabove, it varies from one month to eleven months. N complaint narrates",,,,,
incident of a particular day. They indicate that all the incidents have happened not on a particular day or a particular time of a particular day, though he",,,,,
accused in all these cases is common i.e. the petitioner. The victims in all these cases are not common but are different. The period of such offence,,,,,
ranges from January, 2023 to August, 2023. With no certain time and period and the complainants being different, the contention of the learned",,,,,
counsel appearing for the petitioner that the same is hit by doctrine of sameness is unacceptable.,,,,,
The principle of second FIR has been summarized in the case of Awadesh Kumar Jhas alias Akhilesh Kumar Jha and Another versus State of Bihar,,,,,
reported in (2016) 3 SCC 8, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that in case, substance of allegations in the second FIR are different from",,,,,
first FIR and related to different transaction, case arising out of second FIR survives.",,,,,
At this stage, it would be fruitful to refer to the question of clubbing the trials on the basis of the ‘samenesss’ as canvassed by the learned",,,,,
advocate for the petitioner. This Court finds that “Sameness principle†refers to the FIRs related to the same incident or that are part of the same,,,,,
transaction, or the subject matter of which is the same. It is pertinent to observe that the test of sameness applies only when there is the same offence",,,,,
but not the same kind of offence. Here, all the transactions are different with different branches of the bank and documents executed for such",,,,,
transactions are different and even witnesses for each transactions are different. The Coordinate Bench of this Court has, vide judgment dated",,,,,
28.03.2023, recorded on Criminal Misc. Application No.7732 of 2017 and cognate matter, observed in Para : 10.4 as under :",,,,,
“10.4 The expression “same transaction†is not defined anywhere in the Code and would be difficult to define precisely what the,,,,,
expression means. Whether a transaction can be regarded the same would necessarily depend upon the particular facts of each case, but",,,,,
generally when there is proximity in time or place or immediate purpose or design or continuity of action in respect of series of acts, it may",,,,,
be possible to infer that they form part of the same transaction. Several acts committed by a person, so unity of purpose or design that",,,,,
would be on a strong circumstances to indicate that those acts form part of same transaction. The connection between ‘a series of,,,,,
acts’ is to be an essential ingredient for those acts to constitute the same transaction. A transaction may be an isolated act or may be,,,,,
consisting of one series of acts. A series of acts which constitute a transaction must of necessarily be connected with one other and if some,,,,,
of them spell out independently they would not form part of the same transaction, but would constitute a different transaction or",,,,,
transactions. The expression “same transaction†occurring in clause (a) and (d) of section 223 are required to be given the same,,,,,
meaning according to the normal rule of construction of statute. The real and substantial dates of determining, whether several offences are",,,,,
so connected together as to form the same transaction, depend upon whether they are related to one point of purpose or as cause or effect",,,,,
of as principle and subsidiary act as to constitute one continuous action. The continuity of action is not in the sense that one act follow the,,,,,
others without any connection but in the sense of intimate connection between different acts, there must be continuity of purpose and",,,,,
concert.â€,,,,,
In view of above and under the circumstances, this Court answers that the subsequent FIRs cannot be treated as supplementary to the first FIR.",,,,,
5.6.2 Now, with regard to the second question that whether all the criminal trials should be clubbed and tried or not is concerned, at this stage, it would",,,,,
be fruitful to refer to the decision in the case of Delhi Administration versus Gurudeep Singh Uban reported in AIR 2000 SC 3737, wherein the",,,,,
Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that justice is an illusion as the meaning and definition of ‘justice’ vary from person to person and party,,,,,
to party. A party feels that it has got justice only and only if it succeeds before the court, though it may not have a justifiable claim. (See also:",,,,,
Girimallappa v. Special Land Acquisition Officer M & MIP & Anr., AIR 2012 SC 3101) Justice is the virtue by which the Society/Court/Tribunal",,,,,
gives a man his due, opposed to injury or wrong.",,,,,
Justice is an act of rendering what is right and equitable towards one who has suffered a wrong. Therefore, while tempering justice with mercy, the",,,,,
Court must be very conscious, that it has to do justice in exact conformity with some obligatory law, for the reason that human actions are found to be",,,,,
just or unjust on the basis of whether the same are in conformity with, or in opposition to, the law.",,,,,
At this stage, it would also be fruitful to refer to the provisions of Section 220(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which reproduced as under",,,,,
:,,,,,
“220. Trial for more than one offence -(1) If, in one series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction, more offences",,,,,
than one are committed by the same person, he may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, every such offence.â€",,,,,
Further, the provisions of Sections 218, 219 and 223 of the Code read as under :",,,,,
“218. Separate charges for distinct offences.,,,,,
(1) For every distinct offence of which any person is accused there shall be a separate charge, and every such charge shall be tried",,,,,
separately:,,,,,
Provided that where the accused person, by an application in writing, so desires and the Magistrate is of opinion that such person is not",,,,,
likely to be prejudiced thereby, the Magistrate may try together all or any number of the charges framed against such person.",,,,,
(2) Nothing in sub- section (1) shall affect the operation of the provisions of sections 219, 220, 221 and 223.",,,,,
219. Three offences of same kind within year may be charged together. -,,,,,
 (1) When a person is accused of more offences than one of the same kind committed within the space of twelve months from the first to the,,,,,
last of such offences, whether in respect of the same person or not, he may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, any number of them",,,,,
not exceeding three.,,,,,
(2) Offences are of the same kind when they are punishable with the same amount of punishment under the same section of the Indian Penal,,,,,
Code (45 of 1860 ) or of any special or local law: Provided that, for the purposes of this section, an offence punishable under section 379",,,,,
of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860 ) shall be deemed to be an offence of the same kind as an offence punishable under section 380 of,,,,,
the said Code, and that an offence punishable under any section of the said Code, or of any special or local law, shall be deemed to be an",,,,,
offence of the same kind as an attempt to commit such offence, when such an attempt is an offence.",,,,,
223. What persons may be charged jointly. -,,,,,
The following persons may be charged and tried together, namely:-",,,,,
(a) persons accused of the same offence committed in the course same transaction;,,,,,
(b) person accused of an offence and persons accused of abetment of, or attempt to commit, such offence;",,,,,
(c) person accused of more than one offence of the same kind, within the meaning of section 219 committed by them jointly within the period",,,,,
of twelve months;,,,,,
(d) persons accused of different offences committed in the course of the same transaction;,,,,,
(e) persons accused of an offence which includes theft, extortion, cheating, or criminal misappropriation, and persons accused of receiving",,,,,
or retaining, or assisting in the disposal or concealment of, property possession of which is alleged to have been transferred by any such",,,,,
offence committed by the first named persons, or of abetment of or attempting to commit any such last named offence;",,,,,
(f) persons accused of offences under sections 411 and 414 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860 ). or either of those sections in respect of,,,,,
stolen property the possession of which has been transferred by one offence;,,,,,
(g) persons accused of any offence under Chapter XII of the Indian Penal Code relating to counterfeit coin and persons accused of any,,,,,
other offence under the said Chapter relating to the same coin, or of abetment of or attempting to commit any such offence; and the",,,,,
provisions contained in the former part of this Chapter shall, so far as may be, apply to all such charges:",,,,,
Provided that where a number of persons are charged with separate offences and such persons do not fall within any of the categories,,,,,
specified in this section, the Magistrate may, if such persons by an application in writing, so desire, and if he is satisfied that such persons",,,,,
would not be prejudicially affected thereby, and it is expedient so to do, try all such persons together.â€",,,,,
The above provision provides for trial of more than one offences, but the limitation lays down is that the offences must arise from the same",,,,,
transaction, expressing in case of one series of acts so connected together to form the same transaction when more offences are committed by the",,,,,
same persons.,,,,,
In the instant case, the petitioner is common in all the FIRs. The period of offence as alleged is between 2019 to 2023. The complainants are different,",,,,,
the modus is different, the witnesses are approximately 50, 24, 70, 22 and 36, respectively, in all the five charge-sheets, the loan accounts are different,",,,,,
the amount is different, the branches of the bank are different, investigation is over qua all the FIRs, charge-sheets are filed, criminal cases are",,,,,
numbered, trials are commenced and the trial Court has framed the charges also. In one of the trials, it is at the stage of arguments of the learned",,,,,
advocates.,,,,,
Therefore, bare perusal of the FIRs is enough to reach to a conclusion that the allegations in these FIRs arise out of different settings and have",,,,,
different context. Further, the fact remains that the incidents have no co- relation with each other and having different background as well as fact",,,,,
situations, therefore, it would not allow themselves to be clubbed together for their being judicially adjudicated upon together.",,,,,
Since this Court finds that the subsequent FIRs cannot be treated as supplementary to the first FIR, looking to the peculiar circumstances of the case,",,,,,
the prayers for clubbing the criminal trials is also not acceptable.,,,,,
6. There cannot be any dispute with regard to the law enunciated in the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court relied upon by the learned advocate,,,,,
for the petitioner, however, it cannot be helpful to the petitioner any further in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case and now the",,,,,
proceedings of cases are also not at same stage in every matter. The present case does not fall within the purview of these decisions with such facts.,,,,,
Therefore, no relief as prayed for can be granted in view of above discussion. Hence, the present petition deserves to be dismissed.",,,,,
7. In view of above and considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this petition needs to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly.",,,,,
After pronouncement of judgment, a request is made for suspension of operation of this judgment, however, considering the fact that now the charges",,,,,
are already framed by the trial Courts concerned, this request is not accepted.",,,,,
