DEVENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA v. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

4

FIR, as per the procedure established and elaborated by the Hon'ble Apex Court; and

7.4 issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to the effect that if any accused has been granted bail in connection with the principal FIR or in any other FIR which will stand clubbed/merged, the bail so granted in favour of any accused, must enure be applicable in all cases, which have been clubbed, in favour of such accused until the court of competent jurisdiction cancels the same for any reason including breach of any bail condition.

7.5 Pass such other/further order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the given facts and circumstances."

3. A succinct portrayal of facts is that petitioners No.1 to 4 are holders of different posts in Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited and petitioners No.5 to 7 are Multi State Co-operative Societies, registered under the provisions of Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 (for brevity "Act, 2002") and have been authorized by the Central Registrar, the Ministry of Co-operative, Government of India for carrying on their businesses as per their certificate of registration and bye-laws, which are duly registered as per the provisions of Act, 2002. The Central Registrar of Multi-State Co-operative Societies is the regulator of the petitioner-societies, under the Act, 2002. The petitioners are seeking protection and indulgence of this Court claiming the above-quoted reliefs inasmuch as there arose some flaw in the functioning of petitioner-Society and as such the depositors who are sprawling all over the country raised their grievance and number of them lodged FIRs against the petitioners in various police stations within the State of Madhya Pradesh, wherein, their melancholy was discontentment about the non-payment of maturity proceeds of their investments with the petitioner-Society. Albeit, the nature of accusation

5

in all the FIRs is seemingly identical. Indeed, the police registered the offences at various police stations punishable under Section 6(1) of Madhya Pradesh Protection of Depositors' Interests Act, 2000 and Sections 406, 420, 409 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners have also made appendage to the petition a listicle chart of FIRs registered in different police stations in the State of Madhya Pradesh.

4. Focusing on an order passed by the Supreme Court in Contempt Petition (C) No.412/413 of 2012, Shri Sanjay Agrawal, learned senior counsel submitted that the Supreme Court has thwarted Sahara Group of Companies from parting with any of its movable and immovable properties until further orders. As such, the petitioners encountered serious financial depletion and all their financial commitments came to a grinding halt, however, the Supreme Court later-on green-signaled the sell of properties by the Sahara Company imposing certain conditions including a direction to deposit entire sale proceeds minus the transaction costs in SEBI-Sahara Refund Account. As submitted by Shri Agrawal, presently SEBI Sahara Refund Account has total corpus of fund as Rs.24,979.67 Crore including interest. Further he submitted that the Supreme Court has directed release of Rs.5000 Crore, out of unutilized amount of Rs.24,979.67 Crore, lying in Sahara SEBI Refund Account, in favour of Central Registrar, Cooperative Societies, New Delhi for making repayment to the depositors'/members of the petitioner-Societies. Averred it is in the petition that the Supreme Court has been pleased to appoint Hon'ble Shri Justice R. Subhash Reddy, a former Judge of the Supreme Court to supervise repayment to the depositors/members by the Central Registrar

6

so that the process of making payment can be made translucent. Such order passed by the Supreme Court while dealing with I.A.No.56308/2023 in W.P.(C) No.191/2022 (Pinak Pani Mohanty v. Union of India and Ors.) is also made appendage to the petition as Annexure-P/3. For ready reference, I deem it apposite to quote the directions of the Supreme Court, as under:-

"(i) Out of the total amount of Rs.24,979,67 Crores lying in the "Sahara-SEBI Refund Account", Rs.5000 Crores be transferred to the Central Registrar of Cooperative Societies, who, in turn, shall disburse the same against the legitimate dues of the depositors of the Sahara Group of Cooperative Societies, which shall be paid to the genuine depositors in the most transparent manner and on proper identification and on submitting proof of their deposits and proof of their claims and to be deposited in their respective bank accounts directly.

(ii) The disbursement shall be supervised and monitored by Justice R. Subhash Reddy, Former Judge of this Court with the able assistance of Shri Gaurav Agarwal, learned Advocate, who is appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist Justice R. Subhash Reddy as well as the Central Registrar of Cooperative Societies in disbursing the amount to the genuine depositors of the Sahara Group of Cooperative Societies. The manner and modalities for making the payment is to be worked out by the Central Registrar of Cooperative Societies in consultation with Justice R. Subhash Reddy, Former Judge of this Court and Shri Gaurav Agarwal, learned Advocate.

(iii) Rs. 15 lakhs per month be paid to Justice R. Subhash Reddy, Former Judge of this Court and Rs.5 lakhs per month be paid to Shri Gaurav Agarwal, learned Amicus Curiae towards their honorarium.

(iv) We direct that the amount be paid to the respective genuine depositors of the Sahara Group of

7

Cooperative Societies out of the aforesaid amount of Rs.5,000 Crores at the earliest, but not later than nine months from today. The balance amount thereafter be again transferred to the "Sahara-SEBI Refund Account"."

5. Shri Agrawal accentuated that letter dated 23.05.2023 (Annexure-P/4) contains the details of transfer of amount showing that Rs.5000 Crore have been transferred from SEBI Sahara Refund Account to the Central Registrar, Cooperative Societies, New Delhi. The Central Government, Ministry of Cooperation issued a notification on 20.06.2023 allowing use of Aadhar authentication data relating to the depositors of Sahara Group of Credit Cooperative Societies for verification purpose, which shall be performed through the online portal, developed by M/s Stockholding Document Management Services Ltd. using e-KYC authentication facility, during the process of repayment to the depositors. Shri Agrawal has also drawn attention of this Court towards a letter issued by the Home Department of State of Madhya Pradesh on 05.07.2023 addressing to DGP, Police Headquarters, Bhopal for issuing advisory to return the amount of depositors of Sahara Group of Companies and Cooperative Societies. The said letter contained details of the order passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Pinak Pani Mohanty (supra) asking that in pursuance to the FIRs registered in different police stations and in case any complaint is received relatable to non-payment of maturity proceeds by the petitioner-society and keeping in mind the interest of depositors, they should be informed as to in what manner they can conveniently get their amount back. Since the procedure for refunding the amount to the depositors/members is being controlled by the Central Cooperative Registrar, Union of India and the same is being monitored by the retired Judge of the Supreme Court and

8

as such it is instructed that all pending complaints be disposed of accordingly. The instructions issued by the Home Department are for the welfare of depositors and to take them out from the rigmarole of getting their money back.

6. The Police Department on 18.07.2023 issued a letter informing all the Superintendents of Police of State of Madhya Pradesh and also the Deputy Commissioners, Bhopal and Indore with regard to the advisory issued by the Home Department so as to refund the amount of depositors. Shri Agrawal submitted that as of now it is clear that funds are available with the Central Registrar and the Central Registrar has created Web Portal for making repayments to the investors/members. However, he submitted that the under the existing circumstances, the depositors are lodging FIRs and in pursuance to the registration of FIRs, the petitioners are being shackled by the police. Evidently, the petitioners have also filed bail orders passed by the High Court time and again. Ergo, it is claimed that it would be arduous and inconvenient not only for the petitioners but also for the depositors to attend the cases registered at different places in the State of Madhya Pradesh. Shri Agrawal emphasized that obviously the matter is being monitored by the Supreme Court by appointing a retired Supreme Court Judge to regulate such proceeding; amount has also been deposited with the Registrar of Central Cooperative Society; a specific account has been opened and portal is created in which depositors can make application with the details of their investments, therefore, the proclivity of the petitioner-Society makes it per se genuine and that they are not committing any fraud nor trying to beguile anyone and as such the Home Department of State of Madhya Pradesh has also issued advisory.

9

In such situation, it is better to pass an appropriate direction for clubbing all sprawling FIRs at one place and also a direction to the police authorities that if any complaint is received, investor-complainant should be made aware of mechanism in which they can, at ease, get their money back and instead of making arrest, notice may be issued to the accused (petitioners) in the light of the directions issued by the Supreme Court in re Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and another (2014) 8 SCC 273 so as to evade instant arrest. Shri Agrawal propounded that the clouds of arrest are looming large over of the petitioners, who are post holders of the Sahara Cooperative Society and are leaving no stone unturned in making arrangements for the benefit of depositors and investors so that their money can be refunded, but their arrest roils the water, which disturbs their relentless action and in fact under the existing circumstances when everything is being overseen/monitored by the Supreme Court and advisory also issued by the Home Department, then in the interest of justice, appropriate direction may be issued so as to make this procedure simple, convenient and workable. Pointing towards the ray of hope for the petitioners, Shri Agrawal has relied upon various decisions of the Supreme Court and also of High Courts where direction for clubbing the FIRs at one place was issued.

7. I have patiently heard the submissions of learned senior counsel for the petitioner and perused the record with vigilantism.

8. Before reaching to a firm conclusion, I feel it expedient to mull over the existing circumstances and whether claim of the petitioners can be approved by fitting it in the four corners of law.

9. The Supreme Court in re T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala and others (2001) 6 SCC 181 has observed that under Sections 154,

10

155, 156, 157, 162, 169, 170 and 173 of CrPC, only the earliest or the first information in regard to cognizable offence satisfies the requirement of Section 164 of CrPC and there cannot be second FIR and consequently there can be no fresh investigation on receipt of other subsequent information in respect of same cognizable offence or same incident given rise to one or more cognizable offence. In case of

Radhey Shyam v. State of Haryana and Others 2022 SCC Online SC 1935, the Supreme Court has observed that the multiplicity of proceedings will not be in the interest of larger public and that the investigating officer will be free to file supplementary charge-sheet after collation of records concerning other cases. The Supreme Court further held that if the accused has been admitted to bail in connection with principal FIR, or criminal case arising therefrom, in which the other FIRs/criminal cases will stand clubbed/merged at one place.

10. In re Abhishek Singh Chauhan v. Union of India and Others 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1936, wherein, all the cases registered in the State of Maharashtra have been directed to be clubbed with principal FIR and even farther, FIRs registered in other States have also been clubbed at one place of that State where principal FIR in the said State was registered.

11 This High Court in re Okendra Singh v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. in W.P.No.5397/2023 relying upon several decisions of the Supreme Court, directed that the FIRs registered against the petitioner therein at different police stations of State of Madhya Pradesh be clubbed together and a consolidated investigation be initiated at one place.

12. The Supreme Court in re Mohammed Zubair v. State of

11

NCT of Delhi and Others 2022 SCC OnLine SC 897 has observed as under:-

"24. As regards the prayer for quashing of the FIRs, an essential aspect of the matter which must be noticed at this stage is that the investigation by the Special Cell of the Delhi Police in FIR No.172/2022 pertains to offences of a cognate nature to those which hae been invoked in the FIRs which have been lodged before the Police Stations in Uttar Pradesh. Before this court can embark on an enquiry as to whether the FIRs should be quashed, it is appropriate that the petitioner pursues his remedies in accordance with the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution and/or section 482 of the CrPC. However, a fair investigative process would require that the entirety of the investigation in all the FIRs should be consolidated and entrusted to one investigating authority. The overlap of the FIRs, emanating as they do from the tweets of the petitioner, only goes to emphasize the need for a consolidated, as opposed to piece-meal investigation by a diverse set of law enforcement agencies."

13. In the case of Ramkrishna Premchand Dubey and Another v. State of Maharashtra 2020 SCC OnLine Bom.9316, the High Court of Bombay has observed as under:-

"10. I am respectfully bound by the articulation of the Division Bench. It is evident, and rather undisputed, that the nature of the transaction in the 26 crimes is identical and there is commonality of allegations. Rather than causing prejudice to the prosecution or the witnesses, it would be in their interest if the trials are clubbed since clubbing may possible reduce the number of witnesses to bare minimum. Clubbing would ensure speedy trial. It is not only in the interest of the applicants-accused that the trials be concluded expeditiously, the victims would have solace and closure.

11. In the totality of the circumstances, the applicants

12

have made out a case for clubbing of the 26 trials. Since most of the crimes are registered at police stations in Vidarbha, it would be appropriate if the trials are transferred to the Special Court constituted for trying offences under the MPID Act, at Nagpur.

12. The proceedings in the 26 crimes, detailed in paragraph 1 of the affidavit in response filed on behalf of the State are transferred to MPID Court, Nagpur.

13. Charge-sheets are not submitted in certain crimes. No sooner are the charge-sheet submitted in all the 26 crimes, the Special Court shall assess the probable expenditure required to meet the travelling and other permissible expenditure of the witnesses and shall direct the applicants to deposit a tentative amount in the Court. This direction is issued in view of the readiness and willingness expressed by the applicants to bear the expenditure which may be incurred by the witnesses."

14. The Bombay High Court also in the case of Pramod Bhaichand Raisoni and Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. in W.P.No.2784/2018 decided on 02.05.2019 dealing with the provisions of Maharashtra Protection of Interests of Depositors Act, observed as under:-

"16 The Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors Act is a special enactment to ameliorate the interest of the depositors and the said Act is enacted to deal with such financial establishments in the State who are grabbing money received as deposits from public mostly middle class and poor strata of the society, on the promise of unprecedented high Tilak 29/30 WP 2784 (J).doc attractive interest on maturity and such financial establishments have defaulted and it has cost great public resentment and uproar creating law and order problem in the State. The said legislation intends to cure the malady of thousands and thousands of depositors ramped into a public disorder and the fraudulent default of the accused in such type of offences form a unique class of white collared and

13

organized crime. The transactions of the accused persons who are the petitioners before us have exploited several depositors and the promise on which the deposits were accepted was never fulfilled. The procedure contemplated under the Special enactment intends to prevent and protect the precarious loss of the depositors and enable them to recover the amount as early as possible. No solution is available to the innocent unsecured depositors in absence of the procedure prescribed in the enactment. In our considered opinion, it is also the duty of the State to assist the innocent depositors and to protect their interest and effectively take steps to recover the amount and return the same to the persons who have lost their savings. The State being the custodian of the welfare of the subjects cannot be a silent Tilak 30/30 WP 2784 (J).doc spectator and once a legislation has been brought in, to deal with this malady and protect the interest of the vulnerable sector, it is the duty of the State to render justice to such depositors and this would be in real sense amounting to securing of socio economic justice to its citizens, which is a solemn duty of every State.

We, therefore, deem it expedient to exercise our powers conferred on us by virtue of Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to transfer the 77 criminal cases against the Bhaichand Hirachand Raisoni Multi- State Credit Co-operative Society and its office bearers/employees pending in the different Special MPID Courts in the State to be transferred to the Special MPID Court at Jalgaon. On such transfer, the Special Court (MPID Jalgaon District) would preferably conduct the trial on day to day basis."

15. On mature consideration of the facts and circumstances in the given case and the view expressed by the Supreme Court and the High Courts in above cited decisions among others, I find that for the complacency of not only the accused, but the sufferers clubbing of FIRs/trials would possibly ensure the speedy justice and it would also

14

avert a situation of distinguished final outcomes of distinct trials. Obviously, there appears to be a commonality of accusation with which the accused are charged with, therefore, rather to embark on different paths, it would be justifiable to navigate all proceedings in one direction to reach a solitary judicious conclusion. Accordingly, I dispose of this petition directing respondents No.1 to 3 to issue appropriate direction to the police stations of different districts to transfer the FIRs (as detailed in paragraph 5.18 of the writ petition), fifteen in number, and club them together at a place where principal FIR bearing Crime No.895/2020 was registered at Police Station Kotwali District Morena. Similarly, in those matters where the challan has already been filed in the Court and trial is triggered, such criminal cases shall also be transferred to the Court where cognizance of principal FIR is or to be taken. Respondents No.1 to 3 shall also ensure issuance of requisite instructions to the police stations that in the event of receiving any complaint by the depositors/members against the petitioners, they should act as per the advisory issued and instead of arresting the accused (petitioners), notice should be issued to them vis-a-vis complaint made by the depositors/members to enable instant action for ventilating their grievance. Let aforesaid exercise be completed by the respondents as expeditiously as possible.

16. With the above directions, the petition stands disposed of.

(SANJAY DWIVEDI)

JUDGE

sudesh