Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 27, Cited by 0]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Sanjay Bhati vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 May, 2025

Author: Vishal Dhagat

Bench: Vishal Dhagat

         NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25215




                                                          1                           WP-14945-2024
                                 IN      THE    HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
                                                    PRADESH
                                                  AT JABALPUR
                                                    BEFORE
                                      HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT
                                           WRIT PETITION No. 14945 of 2024
                                              SANJAY BHATI
                                                 Versus
                                THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
                           Appearance:
                             Shri Sunil Kumar Tiwari, Shri Shubham Saxena and Shri Pavan Kumar-
                           Advocate for the petitioner.

                             Shri Pradeep Singh- Government Advocate for State.

                                                  Reserved on: 02/04/2025

                                                   Passed on: 29/05/2025

                                                              ORDER

Petitioner has filed this petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India making a prayer to consolidate and club known and unknown FIRs lodged against petitioner arising out of Bike Bot Project in State of Madhya Pradesh. Petitioner has made a prayer of following FIRs:-

(i) FIR No. 448 of 2020 registered at Police Station Khudel, District Indore, under sections 406, 420 IPC;
(ii) FIR No. 353 of 2019 registered at Police Station Neemuch Cantt., District Neemuch, under sections 467, 420, 468 IPC and Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHIVANI SINGH RAJPUT Signing time: 31-05-2025 12:30:21 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25215

2 WP-14945-2024 Section 3(1) & 6(1) of MP Protection of Depositors Interests Act, 2000;

(iii) FIR No. 1388 of 2019 registered at Police Station Kolgawan, District Satna, under Section 420 IPC and Section 6(1) of MP Protection of Depositors Interests Act, 2000;

(iv) FIR No. 355 of 2019 registered at Police Station Govindgarh, District Rewa, under sections 420, 406 IPC;

(v) FIR No. 207 of 2019 registered at Police Station Talen, District Rajgarh, under sections 420, 406 IPC;

(vi) FIR No. 674 of 2021 registered at Police Station Barwah, District Khargaon, under sections 420, 406 IPC.

2. Counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that petitioner is a businessman and running business of construction activities. M/s Garvit Innovative Private Limited Company was incorporated under Companies Act, 1956. In month of November-December, 2016, the said company started working in an application named BIKEBOT and investments scheme in name of Bike Bot Project whereby any person could invest total amount of Rs.62,100/- for period of 12 months and could receive installment at Rs.9,765/- per month as assured rental income. Company would purchase a motor bike to run a business similar to that Ola and Uber cab services in the country and will pay rental income to investors. Initially, company Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHIVANI SINGH RAJPUT Signing time: 31-05-2025 12:30:21 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25215 3 WP-14945-2024 functioned well but later on as company shifted to e-vehicle and applied for various licenses. Complaints were filed against company as well as directors. Petitioner resigned from company on 18.11.2018. Petitioner is in custody since last five years. It is submitted that petitioner is subjected to repeated arrest and there is delay in trial. Multiple FIRs on same facts and cause of action are registered. In these circumstances, prayer is made to club the FIRs mentioned above and be heard in one case. Counsel appearing for petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed in case of Satinder Singh Bhasin vs. Government (NCT of Delhi) reported in 2019 (10) SCC 800 and Amanat Ali Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2023 SCC Online 1648. Power which has been exercised by Apex Court in case of Satinder Singh Bhasin Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, therefore, no orders could be passed by this Court relying on said judgment. Similarly in case of Amanat Ali (Supra) was also passed exercising power under Section 142 of the Constitution of India. Similarly there was clubbing of FIRs in case of Amish Devgan vs. U.O.I reported in (2021) 1 SCC 1.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the State/respondents opposed the prayer for transfer of all trial to one Court. It is submitted that witnesses in each cases are different and may be Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHIVANI SINGH RAJPUT Signing time: 31-05-2025 12:30:21 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25215 4 WP-14945-2024 residing in different places, therefore, trial at one place will affect the prosecution case. It is also submitted that petitioner is not covered by the judgment relied upon by him.

4. Heard the counsel for the parties.

5. There is not series of transaction which resulted into an offence but each case is separate and incidents occurred therein are not common with subsequent FIR. Consequences of offence also ensue where complainant resides, therefore, benefit of Section 180 of the Cr.P.C. cannot be granted to petitioners as complainants are different and reside in different place. Petitioners' case is also not covered by Section 181(1) to 181(3) of the Cr.P.C. which specifically deals with Dacoity, murder, kidnapping, abduction and robbery. However, petitioners' case may be covered under Section 181(4) of the Cr.P.C. as offence of criminal misappropriation or criminal breach of trust is said to have been committed along with other offences and said offences can be tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction offence was committed or any part of property which is the subject of the offence was received or retained or was required to be returned or accounted for by the accused person. In this case, property is to be accounted by a company having a registered office at Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh. Said place is not situated within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHIVANI SINGH RAJPUT Signing time: 31-05-2025 12:30:21 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25215 5 WP-14945-2024 therefore, High Court of Madhya Pradesh cannot order pending trials to be transferred in State of Uttar Pradesh. Further, direction to conclude trial in one place under State of Madhya Pradesh for crimes committed within the territorial jurisdiction of State of Madhya Pradesh can be ordered if case of petitioners is covered under Sections 219, 220 or 221 of the Cr.P.C.

6. If offence committed by petitioner is of same kind and is committed within period of 12 months from first to last of such offence and three of such offences can be consolidated. In this case, offence is said to have been committed between year 2019 to 2022 and offences are more than three in number, therefore, Section 219 of the Cr.P.C. does not have any application in case of petitioner. Neither Section 184 of the Cr.P.C. comes to rescue of petitioner for clubbing of FIRs to be tried together. Similarly, benefit of Section 181(4) also cannot be granted to petitioners as offence is not only of criminal misappropriation or criminal breach of trust but also includes Sections 420, 409, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the IPC and also offence punishable under Madhya Pradesh Protection of Depositors Interest Act, 2000 and Reserve Bank of India Act.

7. Section 221 of the Cr.P.C. does not have any application in case of petitioners as there is no doubt what offence has been committed.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHIVANI SINGH RAJPUT Signing time: 31-05-2025 12:30:21

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25215 6 WP-14945-2024

8. Apex Court in case of Satinder Kumar Bhasin(supra) and also in case of Amanat Ali(supra) has exercised powers for clubbing of FIRs together under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. Said power is available to Supreme Court to do complete justice in the case. Judgment pass under Article 142 to do complete justice in fact and circumstances of the case are not binding proceedings in case of Amish Devgan vs. Union of India reported in (2021) 1 SCC 1 was different in said case of same incident, many FIRS has been lodged by targeted groups by way of retaliatory proceedings at different police station pertaining to same incident. Facts in the case of Amish Devgan is also distinguishable from this case, therefore, said case will also not have any application.

9. Considering aforesaid discussion and facts and circumstances of the case, petition filed by petitioner for clubbing of FIRs is dismissed.

(VISHAL DHAGAT) V. JUDGE SS Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHIVANI SINGH RAJPUT Signing time: 31-05-2025 12:30:21