ORDER
The present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner seeking issuance of appropriate writ/directions for the clubbing of multiple FIRs registered across different districts of Madhya Pradesh, all arising out of alleged common transaction relating to the non-payment of maturity proceeds to depositors of a company. The petitioner also seeks a direction that subsequent FIR on the same cause of action be treated as statements under Section 161 CrPC/Section 180 BNSS, and that the multiplicity of proceedings be curtailed in order to safeguard fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
2 . Brief facts of the petition are that the petitioner is the Director of a company (ANPL), incorporated on 26.07.2016 (Annexure P-2) and engaged in financial activities including the collection of deposits. Multiple FIRs have
1
been registered against the petitioner and other office bearers of the company at different police stations across the State of MP, alleging non-payment of maturity amounts to depositors. The details of such FIRs have been filed on record which are as under:-
• Crime No.662/2020 at PS Dunda Seoni
• Crime No.264/2021 at PS Amhiya, Rewa
• Crime No.611/2021 at PS Kotwali, Shivpuri
• Crime No.752/2021 at PS Kotwali, Shivpuri
3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations in all FIRs are substantially similar; namely, the depositors invested money with the company and the maturity amount was not repaid. The petitioner contends that all FIRs arise from a common cause of action and a single alleged financial scheme; therefore, multiple FIRs and parallel investigations are illegal. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that multiple FIRs on the same cause of action violated Articles 14 and 21, of the Constitution and the petitioner is subjected to undue harassment by being compelled to face multiple investigations. The first FIR (Crime No. 662/2020 registered at P.S. Dunda Seoni) ought to be treated as the principal FIR, and all subsequent FIRs ought to be treated as statements under Section 161 CrPC.
4. The learned Government Advocate opposed the petition, contending that each FIR pertains to different complainants and distinct transactions. As the offences involve separate amounts and different victims, the registration of multiple FIRs is legally valid and maintainable.
5 . Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the
2
record. 6 . Although the FIRs relate to similar allegations of non-payment of deposits, each FIR pertains to different complainants, different amounts invested, and separate transactions and inducements, therefore, each act of deposit and alleged default constitutes a distinct cause of action. For clubbing of FIRs, the test is whether the offences arise out of the same transaction. In the present case, the alleged acts are not part of a single individual transaction but involve multiple independent financial dealings with different individuals.
7. The judgments relied upon by the petitioner were rendered in exceptional circumstances involving a single overreaching conspiracy or overlapping investigations across State. In the present case, the offences involve distinct victims and individual allegations; hence, the precedents cited are distinguishable. In TT Antony vs. State of Kerala [2001 (6) SCC 181], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that there cannot be a second FIR for the same occurrence; however, it is equally settled that where allegations relate to distinct transactions and different victims, or separate offences, multiple FIRs are permissible. Similarly, in Radhey Shyam vs. State of Haryana (2022 SCC Online SC 1935), the Supreme Court exercised power under Article 142 of Constitution in peculiar facts to club FIRs, arising from a singular fraudulent scheme, but such power is exceptional and fact-specific and cannot be applied mechanically in every case.
8. While multiplicity of proceedings may cause inconvenience, it does not ipso facto violate Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution when each FIR discloses
3
(HIMANSHU JOSHI)
JUDGE
a cognizable offense and each complainant has an independent right to seek redress. This Court, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, does not ordinarily interfere with investigations unless there is manifest illegality or an abuse of process. No such exceptional circumstances are made out here.
9. This Court is of the considered opinion that the FIRs in question arise from distinct transactions involving different complainants. The principle of the "same transaction" is not attracted, and no case is made out for the clubbing of FIRs. No ground for interference under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution is established.
10. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, it is observed that the investigating agencies shall ensure that unnecessary harassment is avoided.
rv
4