Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mohan Kumar Jatav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 February, 2020
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh
WP 7632/2019
Mohan Kumar Jatav Vs. State of MP and Others
Gwalior, dtd. 28/02/2020
Shri SK Shrivastava, counsel for the petitioner.
Shri R. K. Soni, Government Advocate for the respondents/ State.
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-
''7(i) A writ of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondent to pay the monetary relief to the petitioner on account of atrocities committed upon petitioner as per the existing policy of respondent .
(ii) A writ of mandamus may kindly be issued against the respondent to grant the benefit to the petitioner in the same manner in which it has been granted to Sanjay Jatav.
(iii) An appropriate writ or direction may kindly be issued directing the respondents to decide the pending representation of the petitioner Annexure P-8 and P-9.
Any other relief which this Hon'ble High Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted.'' It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was also victim of cheating and merely because he was examined as witness in Crime No.78 of 2017 registered at Police Station Bijoli, District Gwalior for offence under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC, it cannot be said that he was not the victim, but the respondents have denied the compensation merely on the ground that he was not the complainant. It is further submitted that the DySP, AJK, Gwalior had recommended the case to the Assistant Commissioner, Adivasi Vikas, Gwalior by its letter dated 04/04/2019 for grant of compensation amount, however, nothing has been done so far.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
2This Court in the case of Manoj Kumar Goyal Vs. State of M.P. and others passed in MCRC No.15521 of 2019 decided on 09/07/2019, has held as under:-
''16.The 3 Judges Bench of Supreme Court in the case of Narinderjit Singh Sahni Vs. Union of India reported in (2002) 2 SCC 210 has held as under :
60. As regards the issue of a single offence, we are afraid that the fact situation of the matters under consideration would not permit to lend any credence to such a submission.
Each individual deposit agreement shall have to be treated as a separate and individual transaction brought about by the allurement of the financial companies, since the parties are different, the amount of deposit is different as also the period for which the deposit was effected. It has all the characteristics of independent transactions and we do not see any compelling reason to hold it otherwise. The plea as raised also cannot have our concurrence.
17. Another 3 Judges Bench of Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Rajesh Syal reported in (2002) 8 SCC 158 has held as under :
6. On a query being raised by this Court, the learned counsel for the respondent sought to rely on Sections 218 and 220 CrPC in an effort to justify his plea for the consolidation of the cases. Mr Bali submitted that because of the proviso to Section 218, even where there are distinct offences being tried the Magistrate can direct that the same be tried together. In our opinion, proviso to Section 218 would apply only in such a case where the distinct offences for which the accused is charged are being tried before the same Magistrate. In the instant case, offences were being tried before different Magistrates and proviso to Section 218 cannot give any single Magistrate the power to order transfer of cases to him from different Magistrates or courts. Even Section 220 does not help the respondent as that applies where any one series of acts are so connected together as to 3 form the same transaction and where more than one offence is committed, there can be a joint trial.
7. In the present case, different people have alleged to have been defrauded by the respondent and the Company and therefore each offence is a distinct one and cannot be regarded as constituting a single series of facts/transaction.
18. Recently, the High Court of Delhi, in the case of State Vs. Khimji Bhai Jadeja by order dated 8-7-2019 in the case of Cr. Reference No. 1/2014, while deciding the criminal reference made by an Additional Sessions Judge under Section 395(2) of Cr.P.C. has held as under :
The questions of law framed by the Ld. ASJ for determination of this Court, read as follows:
―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 others as witnesses?
b. If in case the Hon'ble Court concludes that each deposit has to be treated as separate transaction, then how many such transactions can be amalgamated into one charge- sheet? (Note: - As per the provisions of section 219 Cr.PC. and as observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Narinderjit Singh Sahni & Anr. Vs. Union of India &Ors. Only three transactions in a particular year can be clubbed in a single charge- sheet).
c. Whether under the given circumstances the concept of maximum punishment of seven years for a single offence can be pressed into service by the accused by clubbing and amalgamating all the transactions into one FIR with maximum punishment of seven years?
(Note: - If this is done, this would be in violation of concept of Proportionality of Punishment as provided in the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the case of Narinderjit Singh Sahni vs. Union of India &Ors. it has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that this cannot be done but in case if we go by the ratio laid down by the Delhi High Court in 4 the case of State vs. Ramesh Chand Kapoor this is possible. Hence this aspect requires an authoritative pronouncement by a larger Bench)‖.
The High Court while answering the reference has held as under :
62. 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 separate 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 register a separate FIR if the complainant discloses commission of a cognizable offence.
* * * *
80. Thus, our answer to question (b) is that in respect of each FIR, a separate final report (and wherever necessary supplementary/ further charge sheet(s)) have to be filed, and there is no question of amalgamation of the final reports that may be filed in respect of different FIRs. The amalgamation, strictly in terms of Section 219 Cr.P.C., would be considered by the Court/ Magistrate at the stage of framing of charge, since Section 219(1) mandates that where the requirements set out in the said Section are met, the accused "may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, any number of them not exceeding three"
81. We may now proceed to answer question (c), which read as follows:
―c. Whether under the given circumstances the concept of maximum punishment of seven years for a single offence can be pressed into service by the accused by clubbing and amalgamating all the transactions into one FIR with maximum punishment of seven years?‖
82. In our view, the aforesaid question does not survive in view of the answer to question (a) and
(b). It would be for the Trial Court to consider the 5 sentence to which the convict may be subjected as per law, keeping in view the well settled principles of sentencing. In this regard, we may only refer to Section 31 of the Cr.P.C. which, inter alia, provides that when a person is convicted at one trial of two or more offences, the Court, may subject to the provisions of Section 71 IPC, sentence him for such offences to the several punishments prescribed therefor which such Court is competent to inflict. It further provides that such punishments, which consist of imprisonment, would commence one after the expiration of the other, unless the Court directs that such punishments shall run concurrently. The limitation on the quantum of sentence is prescribed by sub Section 2 of Section 31 of the Cr.P.C., but the same would apply in respect of convictions at one trial of two or more offences. However, where the trials are multiple, which result into multiple convictions, the proviso to Section 31(2) would have no application.
83. Accordingly, the Criminal reference is answered in the above terms.
19. Thus, each and every act of cheating is a separate offence in itself, requiring registration of separate F.I.R. In the present case, the police has registered only one consolidated F.I.R. and as per the allegations, several persons to the tune of Rs. 4 Crores were cheated by the accused persons. Thus, under these circumstances, although the police might have registered only one F.I.R., but one victim cannot be treated as a complainant and the remaining victims cannot be treated as witnesses only. In the present case, the petitioner has impleaded the complainant only and has filed his own affidavit and the affidavit of the complainant in support of the application filed under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. Since, each victim is a complainant, therefore, affidavits of each and every victim were necessary in support of the application, but in view of the photocopies of affidavits (filed as Annexure P/4) of victims, the petitioner can be directed to implead all the victims as respondents. However, the next question would be that whether any direction to file the affidavits of all the victims would serve any purpose or not? This shall be considered in the following paragraphs.
20. Thus, it is held that the police should have registered separate F.I.R.s for every act of cheating and should not have lodged a consolidated F.I.R. However, as the charge sheet has already been filed against the co-accused persons, 6 therefore, this Court, does not find it appropriate to issue any direction to the police in this regard. '' Thus, it is clear that each and every act of cheating is a separate offence and the other victims cannot be treated as witnesses and each and every victim of cheating would be a complainant. Accordingly, the Assistant Commissioner, Adivasi Vikas, Gwalior is directed to consider the question of payment of compensation to the victim in the light of order passed by this Court in the case of Manoj Kumar Goyal (supra).
Let the entire exercise be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
With the aforesaid direction, this petition is finally disposed of.
CC as per rules.
(G.S.Ahluwalia) Judge MKB MAHENDRA KUMAR BARIK 2020.03.03 12:52:49 +05'30' VALSALA VASUDEVAN 2018.10.26 15:14:29 -07'00'