Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pappu Sharma vs State Of Haryana And Others on 21 April, 2026
CRM-M-5177-2026 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-5177-2026 (O&M)
Reserved on : 11.03.2026
.2026
Pronounced on : 21.04.2026
.2026
Pappu Sharma
..... Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana & Ors.
..... Respondents
Respondent
[
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH
Argued by:
by Mr. Nitin Bhanwala,, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Ramender Singh Chauhan
Chauhan, AAG Haryana.
*****
SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J.
This petition under Section 528 of 'the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Sanhita, 2023',, has been filed by the petitioner for clubbing/consolidating 10 FIRs,, mentioned in Annexure P/1, registered at the instance of different complainants on similar allegations in different police stations against the petitioner.
2. In nut-shell the facts emerging from record are that there exists a society named 'Human Welfare Credit & Thrift Co Co-operative operative Society Societ Limited',, and that the abovementioned Society offered various investment schemes, such as Fixed Deposits, Recurring Deposits, monthly income plans plan and 'Sukanya Samridhi Yojana'.
Yojana' Thee abovementioned schemes were w launched with a claim of providing higher interest rates rates, than the raates offered by Government Governmen Banks.. The assurance of complete safety of the invested amounts was also given.. Relying upon the abovesaid GAURAV THAKUR 2026.04.24 19:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-5177-2026 (O&M) 2 representations, the complainants in all the FIRs registered against the petitioner invested different sums of money in the abovementioned Society.
Societ However, after the year 2024, the Society stopped returning the invested amounts.. It has been alleged in the FIRs that the Society has cheated the investors and usurped the money of investors/depositors investors/depositors.
3. The petitioner has further claaimed that there is no allegation that t he had played an active or role in the commission of alleged offences. As per petitionerr, in a very clandestine manner, different FIRs have been lodged against him, which pertain to the same transactions and have similar allegations. The petitioner has further alleged alleged that as on today there are ten FIRs registered against him.
him The details of such FIRs have been provided, which read as under:-
under:
Sr. FIR Dated Sections Police
No. No. Station
(i) 40 27.02.2025 120-B,
B, 406, 408, 420 of IPC and Sanoli,
Section 3 of the Haryana Panipat
Protection
rotection of Interest of
Depositors in Financial
Establishment Act, 2013 and
Sections 21 and 23 of Banning of
Unregulated Deposit Schemes
Act, 2019.
(ii) 49 27.02.2025 120-B,
B, 406, 408, 420 of IPC, Israna,
Section 3 of HPIDFE Act, 2013 Panipat
and Sections 221 and 23 of BUDS
Act
(iii) 114 27.02.2025 120-B,
B, 406, 408, 420 of IPC, Industrial
Section 3 of HPIDFE Act, 2013 Sector-29,
29,
and Sections 21 and 23 of BUDS Panipat
Act
(iv) 134 24.02.2025 120-B,
B, 406, 408, 420 of IPC, Chandnibag
Section 3 of HPIDFE Act, 201
2013 h, Panipat
and Sections 21 and 23 of BUDS
Act
GAURAV THAKUR
2026.04.24 19:59
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-5177-2026 (O&M) 3
(v) 449 12.11.2024 Section 420 IPC and Section 25 Tehsil
of BUDS Act Camp,
Panipat
(vi) 22 22.01.2025 Sections 316(2), 318(2) and Murthal,
318(4) of BNS Sonipat
(vii) 703 17.12.2024 Sections 316(2), 31
318(4), 61(2) of Thanesar,
BNS, Section 3 of HPIDFE Act, Kurukshetra 2013 and Sections 21 and 23 of BUDS Act
(viii) 392 11.12.2024 Section 406 and 420 of IPC Munak, Karnal
(ix) 315 18.08.2025 Section 120-B, B, 406 and 420 of IP Madhuban, and Section 3 of BUDS Act Karnal arnal
(x) 129 27.02.2025 120-B, B, 406, 408, 420 of IPC, Samalkha, Section 3 of HPIDFE Act, 2013 Panipat and Sections 21 and 23 of BUDS Act
4. According to the petitioner, he has been subjected to multiple prosecutions, through different FIRs registered on similar and identical allegations by different complainants, which are arising out of the same set of transactions and facts, and that the multiplicity of the FIR not only causes serious prejudice to the petitioner's right to fair investigation and defence, nce, but also amount to abuse of process of law. Hence the present petition for clubbing of FIRs.
5. Heard.
6. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner, who is a 50-year-old 50 old respectable member of the Society, Society working ng in a textile company at Panipat, is being subjected to multiple prosecutions, arising out of the same transactions. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, a Society, namely 'Human Welfare Credit & Thrift Co-operative Co Society Limited',, was offe offering ring various investment GAURAV THAKUR 2026.04.24 19:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-5177-2026 (O&M) 4 schemes, assuring higher interest rates, and that various persons including the complainant had invested in those schemes, and reap reaped the benefit of the schemes.
s. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, in the year 2024, 24, the Society stopped paying the benefit of invested money money, and therefore, the investors levelled allegations of cheating against the Society, result resulting into multiple FIRs.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that in the abovementioned abovementioned FIRs, the petitioner is being prosecuted as an accused, and that in any of the abovementioned FIRs, no specific role or active involvement has been attributed to the petitioner. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, petitioner in several of the aboveme abovementioned ntioned FIRs, even the name of the petitioner does not find mention at initial stage, but,, during the course of investigation, merely with an intent to falsely implicate the petitioner, the Investigating Agency is now attempting to add his name.
name According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the Investigating Agency has already filed charge-sheets charge in two Districts, i.e. Kurukshetra and Sonipat, Sonipat and that in a most surprising manner, five FIRs have been registered against the petitioner on the same very day, day, i.e. on 27.02.2025, in five different Police Stations in the same District, which is very unusual on the part of the Investigating Agency.
Agency The learned counssel for the petitioner has contend ded that the abovementioned a events give risee to serious doubt on the intentions of the prosecuting prosecuti agency, as the multiple FIRs have been lodged, containing vague and unsubstantiated uns allegations.
8. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the abovementioned pattern of registration of FIRs is arbitrary and casts GAURAV THAKUR 2026.04.24 19:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-5177-2026 (O&M) 5 a shadow of suspicion over the fairness aand impartiality of the investigative process. As per learned learned counsel for the petitioner, all the ten cases, which have been filed against the petitioner, similar false and baseless allegations have been levelled, and that the pattern of abovementioned cases clearly indicates a targeted and mechanical approach by the Investigating Agency. While referring to the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of 'The State (NCT) of Delhi V/s Khimji Bhai Jadeja' Neutral Citation 2026 INSC 25, 25, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended ontended that instant case is squarely covered by the principles of law propounded in the abovementioned case, and therefore, there should be a direction to the learned trial Court to club/consolidate all the ten FIRs FIRs,, in view of the settled position of law proppounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of 'Alok Kumar Vs State of Bihar & Ors.' SLP(Crl) No.4073/2025.
9. The learned State Counsel has controverted the abovementioned arguments. According to learned State Counsel, in the present case, the th filing of ten FIRs, in different police stations in different Districts,, at the instance of different complainants in itself shows that the cause of action for each of the FIRs was different different. It has also been contended by learned State Counsel that the filing filing of different FIRs in different police stations of different Districts, Districts demolishes the plea of the petitioner that the FIRs have been filed with mala fide intentions. As per learned Sttate Counsel, there is no force in the allegatioon that the Investigating Agency is having any design to harass the petitioner. GAURAV THAKUR 2026.04.24 19:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-5177-2026 (O&M) 6
10. According to learned State Counsel, each of the complainant has approached different police stations stations, according to his own cause of action, and therefore, different FIRs have been lodged in different police stations. As per learned State Counsel, since the Invest Investigating igating Agency in the abovementioned cases are different, the allegations of mala fide intentions on the part of the Investigating Agency cannot sustain. The learned State Counsel while referring to the principles of law laid down in the case of 'State State of Andhra Pradesh V/s Cheemalapati Ganeswara Rao &Anr.' AIR 1963 SC 1850, 1850, has contended that each of the complainant has a separate cause of action, action as every such complainant had a different kind of transactions at different point of time, and different amounts were deposited ed.
11. It has also been contended by learned State Counsel that during the course of investigation, specific role of the petitioner has been found in the commission of offence, and that the charge charge-sheet sheet in several cases have already been filed, and thus, at this stage, the consolidation of FIRs is not possible. While referring to the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of 'Khimji Bhai Jadeja' (supra), the learned State Counsel has contended that th thee proper course available to the petitioner is to approach the learned trial Court and seek the consolidation of trial.
12. The record has been perused carefully.
13. In the present case, at the very outset it is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner, petit in para No.4 of the petition petition, has contended that charge-sheet sheets in two cases in District Kurukshetra and Sonipat have already GAURAV THAKUR 2026.04.24 19:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-5177-2026 (O&M) 7 been filed. In the present case, this fact cannot be ignored that several complaints have been filed by several complainants with th regard to their respective transactions with the society, namely 'Human Welfare Credit & Thrift Co--operative Society Limited', and during the course of investigation, it has been found that specific role, in the commission of offence offence,, is attributable to the petitioner.
pe
14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of 'Khimji Bhai Jadeja' (supra), has dealt with the similar situation. In the abovesaid case, a finding recorded by the Division Bench of Delhi High on the following ing question has been set aside. The question framed by the Division Bench of Delhi High Court was:-
was:
'a. Whether in a case of inducement, allurement and cheating of large number of investors/depositors in pursuance to a criminal conspiracy,, each deposit by an investor constitutes a separate and individual transaction or all such transactions can be amalgamated and clubbed into a single FIR by showing one investor as complainant and other as witnesses?
witnesses?'
15. The abovementioned question was answered by the Division vision Bench in the following words:-
'....
.... Thus, our answer to Question (a) is that in a case of inducement, allurement and cheating of large number of investors/depositors in pursuance to a criminal conspiracy, each deposit by an investor constitutes a sep separate arate and individual transaction. All such transactions cannot be amalgamated and clubbed into a single FIR by showing one investor as the complainant and others as witnesses. In respect of each such transaction, it is imperative for the State to GAURAV THAKUR 2026.04.24 19:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-5177-2026 (O&M) 8 register a separate FIR if the complainant discloses commission of a cognizable offence.
offence.'
16. The abovementioned observations of Division Bench of Delhi High could not hold good before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. However, it has been observed by the Hon' Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that 'Section Section 218(1) CrPC requires a distinct and separate charge for every distinct offence and each separate charge should be tried separately. Sections 219 to 223 CrPC constitute exceptions to this general rule and stipul stipulate ate the circumstances in which deviațion deviațion therefrom can be made. Under Section 219 CrPC, three such offences committed during a year can be the subject matter of a single trial [now, five such offences, under Section 242 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanita, Sanita, 2023 (BNSS)]. Under Sections 220(1) CrPC and 223(a) and (d) CrPC, consolidated charges can be framed against several accused persons in relation to several offences, if such offences are committed during the course of the same transaction. It would, therefore, turn upon the offences forming part of the 'same transaction'.'
17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has further observed that 'precedential precedential law has laid down triple tests, though not to be applied cumulatively, to decide when separate actio actions ns can be treated as part of the 'same transaction'.
transaction' The abovesaid parameters are :-
(i)) unity of purpose and design;
(ii)) proximity of time and place; and
(iii) continuity of action.GAURAV THAKUR 2026.04.24 19:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-5177-2026 (O&M) 9
18. As per Hon'ble Supreme Coourt of India, the abovementioned tests may be applied to ascertain whether a series of acts form part of the same transaction or not. It is not necessary at the present stage to consider whether consolidation of charges under Section 220(1) CrPC should be resorted to, as that would depend upon the opinion of the Magistrate on the strength of the findings recorded recorded during the investigation. If it is opined that all the incidents partake of the same transaction, there can be one trial under Section 220(1) CrPC and Section 223(a) and 223(d)
(d) CrPC. If, however, it is concluded that there are several transactions and disti distinct nct offences in relation to different victims, there have to be separate trials for each offence, subject to Section 219 CrPC/ Section 242 BNSS, which allows the Trial Court to try three/five offences of the same kind committed within a year year'.
19. The Hon'ble 'ble Supreme Cour Court of India in the abovementioned case has also observed that 'consolidation of FIRs is permissible in law, but that would depend upon the conclusion to be arrived at after investigation'. As per Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the above abovementioned mentioned case, a right procedure was adopted by the Delhi Police in registering one FIR and treating the complaint received from 1851 other complainants as statements under Section 161 CrPC.
CrPC. According to Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the inference to be drawn from the charge-sheets, sheets, as filed, would be left to the Judicial Magistrate concerned to consider, so as to ascertain whether the various acts of cheating attributed to the accused persons constitute part of the same transaction, transaction, thereby bringing the them m within the ambit of Section 220(1) CrPC and Section 223(a) & (d) CrPC CrPC.. As directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, if the offence formed part of the same transaction, GAURAV THAKUR 2026.04.24 19:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-5177-2026 (O&M) 10 the Judicial Magistrate would be entitled to charge and try them together, as enabled abled by the aforesaid provisions, as it would be in the larger public interest to do so.
20. Similar question has been dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of 'Ravinder Singh Sidhu V/s The State of Punjab & Ors.', Writ Petition (Crl) rl) No.394 of 2024, it has been observed in the abovemenntioned case that 'the the law in this issue is now fairly well settled. It has been held by this Court that multiplicity of proceedings will not be in larger public interest. Further, since many States have invoked local Acts, particulars iculars the Act dealing with the Protection of Interest of Depositors, transferring them out of the State also will not serve the ends of justice. Hence, the correct course of action would be to merge the FIRs with the earliest FIR in the State concerned'.
concerned
21. In the abovementioned case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has allowed the writ petition in the ffollowing words:-
"while the first FIR will be treated as the First Information Report (hereinafter for convenience called the 'principal FIR'), the he subsequent FIRs in each State shall be treated as Statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). The Investigating Officer in the criminal case arising out of the principal FIR in the concerned State will be free to file supplementary pplementary charge charge-sheets sheets after the collation of all records concerning other FIRs in the concerned State which are clubbed in terms of this order. We further direct that if Police Report under Section 173 of CrPC stands already filed in the clubbed FIRs aand nd the concerned Courts have taken cognizance thereof, the said FIR and criminal cases GAURAV THAKUR 2026.04.24 19:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-5177-2026 (O&M) 11 would also stand transferred and merged/clubbed along with the principal FIR to be proceeded with in accordance with law.'
22. In the case of 'Alok Kumar V/s The State of Bihar & Ors.' Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.4073/2025, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India recorded the following observations:
observations:-
'the first thing that we should do is to order clubbing of all the 81 FIRs/criminal cases registered against the petition petitioner.
We direct that the very first FIR registered against the petitioner dated 11.01.2018 with the Shashtri Nagar Police Station, Patna, Bihar shall be treated as the main FIR. All other First Information Reports shall be treated as statements under Section on 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short "the CrPC"). We are passing this order in tune with the decision of this Court in the case of "Satinder Singh Bhasin v. State of U.P. and Another" reported in 2023 (14) SCC 805.'
23. Taking into consideration sideration the abovementioned principles of law, which are applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case and the fact that all the FIRs against the petitioner are emanating with regard to transactions with the same Society regaarding similar lar type of allegations, it is hereby observed that in the given fact-ssituation, it shall be appropriate that t all the FIRs are clubbed together. Since the highest number of FIRs perttain to District Panipat and the oldest FIR, too, belongs to District Panipat, it is hereby ordered that all the FIRs/charge-sheets FIRs/cha sheets detailed at Sr. No.(vi), (vii
vii),
(viii) and (ix) in the table, shall stand transferred to Panipat and the FIR No.449 dated 12.11.2024 shall serve as principal FIR and all the subsequent complaints/FIRs shall be treated as the statement of complainants under GAURAV THAKUR 2026.04.24 19:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-5177-2026 (O&M) 12 Section 161 of CrPC. If charge-sheet in anny of the abovementioned cases has already been filed, the abovementioned charge charge-sheet sheet shall be treated as supplementary charge-sheet charge sheet in the main case.
24. For rest of the prayers, the innstant petition is hereby dismisseed.
25. With these observations, thhe present petition stands parrtly allowed, accordingly.
a
26. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of, accordingly.
(SURYA PARTAP SINGH)) JUDGE 21.04.202 2026 Gaurav Thakur Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No GAURAV THAKUR 2026.04.24 19:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document