Madhya Pradesh High Court
Binay Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 September, 2025
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:22454
1 MCRC-35877-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 16th OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 35877 of 2023
BINAY SINGH AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sourav Singh Tomar - Advocate for petitioners.
Shri Rajendra Singh Yadav - Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.
ORDER
This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the petitioners seeking a direction for clubbing of FIRs registered against them arising out of crime no. 390/2018 registered at Police Station-Kotwali, Datia(M.P.) for offence punishable under section 420, 467, 468, 469, 471, 406, 409, 120-B of IPC and Crime No.483/2019 registered at Police Station Hazira District Gwalior for offence punishable under section 420,467,468,471 & 34 of IPC and 5 and 6 of The Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 and conducting a joint trial at one place.
2. The brief facts giving rise to the petition are that one FIR bearing Crime No. 390/2018 came to be registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Datia, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 469, 471, 406, 409 and 120-B of IPC, alleging that the petitioners duped investors of Signature Not Verified Signed by: YOGENDRA OJHA Signing time: 9/18/2025 10:29:58 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:22454 2 MCRC-35877-2023 their money in the Pincon Group of Companies and failed to return the invested sum even after maturity. Subsequently, another FIR bearing Crime No. 483/2019 was registered at Police Station Hazira, District Gwalior, for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 IPC and Sections 5 & 6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978, on similar allegations.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that both FIRs arise out of the same series of acts forming part of the same transaction. It is urged that a joint trial would serve the interest of justice, avoid conflicting decisions, and save judicial time. Since the allegations pertain to the same series of transactions, the trial ought to be conducted at one place to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. Counsel further submits that multiplicity of FIRs is against public interest and causes hardship to the accused who must appear at multiple places.
4. In support of the aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed upon judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in T.T. Antony vs. State of Kerala (2001) 6 SCC 181, Arnab Ranjan Goswami vs. Union of India (2020) 14 SCC 51, Amish Devgan vs. Union of India (2021) 1 SCC 1, and Mohammad Zubair vs. State of NCT of Delhi 2022 SCC OnLine SC 807.
5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and submitted that the FIRs in question have been registered at different places on the basis of distinct complaints lodged by different investors. Each FIR discloses a separate cause of action within the jurisdiction of the concerned police station. It is, therefore, contended that the prayer for clubbing of FIRs Signature Not Verified Signed by: YOGENDRA OJHA Signing time: 9/18/2025 10:29:58 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:22454 3 MCRC-35877-2023 is not sustainable in law
6. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. The main thrust of the petitioners' argument is that both FIRs arise out of the same transaction and therefore must be clubbed. However, a careful perusal of the material shows that the FIRs have been lodged at different places by different complainants, each disclosing separate acts of inducement and loss suffered by distinct victims. The mere fact that the accused persons and the company involved are the same does not automatically make the cause of action identical.
8. The reliance placed upon T.T. Antony (supra) is misplaced. In that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with the registration of a second FIR on the very same incident which had already been investigated. It was held that there cannot be a fresh investigation based on subsequent information relating to the same occurrence. The said principle is not applicable to the present case, where multiple investors at different places have lodged complaints regarding cheating committed against them.
9. Similarly, in Arnab Ranjan Goswami (supra), Amish Devgan (supra) and Mohammad Zubair (supra), the issue related to multiple FIRs being registered in different States on the basis of one broadcast/telecast/publication, thereby arising from a single cause of action. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in those cases protected the petitioner from being subjected to multiple prosecutions for the very same act. The factual matrix herein is distinct, as the offences alleged are not confined to a single act but arise out of separate complaints at different places where different Signature Not Verified Signed by: YOGENDRA OJHA Signing time: 9/18/2025 10:29:58 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:22454 4 MCRC-35877-2023 victims were allegedly duped.
10. It is well settled that under Section 220 CrPC, a joint trial may be permissible when the offences form part of the "same transaction". However, where the acts are committed at different places affecting different complainants, it cannot be said that they form part of the same transaction. Each complainant is entitled to pursue his remedy within the jurisdiction where the offence occurred.
11. Further, the convenience of the accused cannot be the sole determinative factor. The interest of justice also requires that the rights of victims are not curtailed by compelling them to pursue proceedings at a place other than where the offence was committed.
12. This Court, therefore, finds that the judgments relied upon by the petitioners are distinguishable on facts and have no application to the present case.
13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prayer for clubbing of FIRs and conducting trial at one place is not sustainable in law.
14. Accordingly, the petition under Section 482 CrPC stands dismissed.
15. No order as to costs.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) JUDGE ojha Signature Not Verified Signed by: YOGENDRA OJHA Signing time: 9/18/2025 10:29:58 AM