Madhya Pradesh High Court
Suresh Tated vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 August, 2023
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
ON THE 25 th OF AUGUST, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 9623 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
SURESH TATED S/O SHRI KESHARCHAND TATED, AGED
66 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS R/O RAJGARH
TEHSIL SARDARPUR DISTT. DHAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
( SHRI AJAY BAGADIA, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MS ISHITA AGRAWAL,
LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH SECRETARY
VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. STATION HOUSE OFFICER POLICE STATION
RAJGARH DIST. DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. STATION HOUSE OFFICER POLICE STATION
AMJERA DIST. INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. STATION HOUSE OFFICER POLCIE STATION
SARDARPUR DIST. DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. STATION HOUSE OFFICER POLICE STATION
RAJOD DIST. DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. STATION HOUSE OFFICER POLICE STATION
KUKSHI DIST. DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
7. STATION HOUSE OFFICER POLICE STATION
KANWAN DIST. DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
8. STATION HOUSE OFFICER POLICE STATION
BAGH DIST. DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SEHAR HASEEN
Signing time: 8/28/2023
1:41:04 PM
2
( SHRI RAJWARDHAN GAWDE, PANEL LAWYER FOR THE
RESPONDENTS/STATE)
This petition coming on for order this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
Heard finally with the consent of both the parties.
In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has sought quashment of seven First Information Reports, details of which are mentioned in the table herein below:
S. Date of Registration FIR No. Police Station Registered by No. of FIR 1 30.08.2019 391/2019 Rajgarh Distt. Dhar Respondent no.2 2 25.09.2019 424/2019 Amjhera, Distt. Dhar Respondent no.3 3 15.10.2019 439/2019 Sardarpur, Distt. Dhar Respondent no.4 4 16.12.2019 289/2019 Rajod, Distt. Dhar Respondent no.5 5 04/01/20 13/2020 Kukshi, Distt. Dhar Respondent no.6 6 17.01.2020 30/2020 Kanvan, Distt. Dhar Respondent no. 7 7 21.07.2020 229/2020 Bag, Distt. Dhar Respondent no. 8
2. The brief facts of the case are that first FIR has been registered on 30.08.2019 bearing Crime No. 391/2019, consequent upon a complaint filed by one Rajesh Victor who is the Inspector in the Office of Registrar, Societies and Firms. The allegations in the FIR relates back to year 2018 in respect of financial irregularities committed by one Rajendra Suri Sakh Sahkari Sansthan Maryadit, Distt. Dhar(referred to as 'Society' hereinafter). The petitioner is the President of the said society. The FIR also contains personal allegations against the petitioner.
3. Thereafter, similar six more FIRs' have been registered on various dates as per the table hereinabove, however, the allegations in these FIRS' are Signature Not Verified Signed by: SEHAR HASEEN Signing time: 8/28/2023 1:41:04 PM 3 also similar in nature as contained in the first FIR.
4. In view of the false FIRs being lodged against the petitioner, he has made a representation to the Deputy Commissioner, Cooperative Society, Distt. Dhar for re-investigation in the matter on 30.05.2020(Annexure P-8). On receipt of representation, the Deputy Commissioner has re-investigated the matter and submitted his report. As per the reported dated 10.07.2020 (Annexure P-9) in which it was found that no irregularities have been committed in the society and petitioner is innocent. A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) bearing W.P. No. 12546/2020 was also filed by one Shantilal Rathod regarding irregularities committed by the Society. In reply, the State Government submitted that no irregularities have been done by the Society. The said PIL was dismissed with heavy cost vide order dated 23.04.2022(Annexure P-11). Even, the Economic Offences Wing has investigated the matter and found that no financial irregularities have been done by the Society and closed the complaint vide order dated 03.10.2018(Annexure P-12). Vide order dated 21.10.2022(Annexure P-
13), the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Society restored the Society since it was not found that the Society has committed any financial irregularity. The petitioner is on bail in all the seven criminal cases pending against him.
5. Shri Bagadia, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that all the seven FIRs are based upon the same preliminary inquiry, they relate to the same year and are based upon the same cause of action.
6. Learned Sr. counsel relied upon the judgement passed in the case of T.T. Antony Vs. State of Kerela reported in 2001 (6) SCC 181 , wherein it was held that there can be no second FIR and no fresh investigation on receipt of every subsequent information in respect of of the same cognizable offence or same occurrence giving rise to one or more cognizable offences. In view of the Signature Not Verified Signed by: SEHAR HASEEN Signing time: 8/28/2023 1:41:04 PM 4 aforesaid, further investigation in all the seven criminal cases cannot go on, which amounts to abuse of power.
7. Learned Sr. counsel further submitted that primarily, the FIRs' in question is illegal and arbitrary and continuance of criminal proceedings based there on is nothing, but an abuse of process of law. The respondents/complaints have filed the instant FIR with a view to pressurize the petitioner.
8. Apart from the judgment of T.T. Antony(supra), in support of the above contentions, learned Sr. counsel has further placed reliance on the Apex Court judgments passed in the cases of Dr. Jerryl Banait Vs. Union of India & Another reported in 2020 SCC Online SC 460, Arnab Ranjan Goswami Vs. Union of India reported in 2020(14) SCC 12, Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah Vs. Central Bureau Of Investigation and Another [2013(6) SCC 348] and prays that a writ, direction or order in the nature of certiorari/mandamus or another appropriate writ, may be issued quashing all the impugned FIRs'.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and submitted that writ petition is liable to be dismissed since all the seven FIRs have been lodged in the year 2019 i.e. around five years back and the investigation is complete and chargsheet has been filed. Separate FIRs have been registered against the petitioner in different police stations on the basis of complaints received from different individuals. Therefore, this petition is not maintainable.
10. In rejoinder, learned Sr. counsel pointed out that in para11 of the reply submitted by the State, it is categorically stated that the allegations in all Signature Not Verified Signed by: SEHAR HASEEN Signing time: 8/28/2023 1:41:04 PM 5 the cases are same i.e. misappropriation of public money as the amount of fixed deposits are not being returned to the account holders in the society. FIRs' have been lodged by the Cooperative Society Department after conducting inquiry. Admittedly, the inquiry conducted u/S 60 of the Cooperative Societies Act in which it is held that 'procedure of investigation has been declared to be wholly unconstitutional and not proved'.
11. Heard, learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
12. In a bunch of petitions, this Court (lead case being W.P. No. 7496/2020 Neelesh Awasthi Vs. State of M.P. & Another), has held that :
" Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order dt.25.03.2020 is contrary to the basic principle of natural justice and has been passed in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. No opportunity of hearing has been provided to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. The impugned order is without any reason, therefore, the same is contrary to the law as Laid down by the Apex Court in the case of M/s Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. and another Vs. Masood Ahmed Khan and others reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496. The impugned order entails the civil consequences, therefore, without opportunity of hearing the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Administrator could not have been cancelled.
Learned counsel has relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Shekhar Ghosh Vs. Union of India and another as reported in (2007) 1 SCC 331 to contend that where passing of the impugned order entails civil consequences, the principle of natural Signature Not Verified Signed by: SEHAR HASEEN Signing time: 8/28/2023 1:41:04 PM 6 justice is required to be followed."
13. In the case of T.T. Antony(supra), it was held:
" T h e report of the Commission was accepted by the Government. On June 30, 1997, as a follow-up action, the Additional Chief Secretary to the Government of Kerala, while enclosing a copy of the said report, wrote to the Director General of Police regarding acceptance of the report of the Commission by the Government and directed that legal action be taken against those responsible on the basis of findings of the Commission. The Director General of Police issued orders to the Inspector General of Police (North Zone), on July 2, 1997, to register a case immediately and have the same investigated by a senior officer. On July 4, 1997 the Inspector General of Police noted that firing without justification by which people were killed amounted to murder and issued direction to the Station House Officer to register a case under the appropriate sections and forward the investigation copy of the F.I.R. to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, North Zone, for urgent personal investigation. On that information the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thalassery, registered Crime No.268/97 of Kuthuparamba Police Station under Section 302, IPC arraigning the said M.V.Raghavan, A.H.Bathery and T.T.Antony as accused 1 to 3 respectively (Ex.P-
6). On September 29, 1998, the DIG of Police who investigated Crime No.268/97 filed interim report (Ex.P-8) in the court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kuthuparamba implicating 19 Signature Not Verified Signed by: SEHAR HASEEN Signing time: 8/28/2023 1:41:04 PM 7 police officers including R.A. Chandrasekhar and fourteen constables who are parties to these appeals."
14. In the case of Amitbhai Anilchandra(supra), it was held that:
" It is the definite case of the CBI that the investigation has revea led that subsequent to the murder of Hamid Lala, Sohrabuddin and Tulsiram Prajapati continued their criminal activities in the States of Maharashtra, Rajasthan and Gujarat. However, Sohrabuddin remained elusive and beyond the reach of the Gujarat Police. It was, therefore, that the accused Amit Shah (petitioner herein), D.G. Vanzara, S. Pandiyan Rajkumar, Dinesh Man and others entered into a conspiracy to abduct and murder Sohrabuddin. Accordingly, D.G. Vanzara, with the aid of Abhay Chudasma, S.P. Valsad had Tulsiram Prajapati, an associate of Sohrabuddin, in order to trace Sohrabuddin. Whilst giving such directions, D.G. Vanzara also assured Tulsiram Prajapati that he would ensure safe passage for him as he would be implicated in some petty cases. It was after this assurance from D.G. Vanzara and Abhay Chudasma that Tulsiram Prajapati agreed to help them in tracing and locating Sohrabuddin. Accordingly, Tulsiram Prajapati, in accordance with his clandestine agreement with the Gujarat Police, informed them in advance about the plan of Sohrabuddin to travel to Sangli from Hyderabad and, thereafter, Sohrabuddin was abducted and murdered. By pointing out the above factual details, it is the stand of the CBI that the first conspiracy took place to eliminate Sohrabuddin with the help of Signature Not Verified Signed by: SEHAR HASEEN Signing time: 8/28/2023 1:41:04 PM 8 Tulsiram Prajapati who agreed to trace and locate him after the assurances given by the Gujarat Police. Thus, in the aforesaid conspiracy, Tulsiram Prajapati can be said to be a part of the said conspiracy though not knowing the motive about the same."
1 5 . In the case of Arnab Ranjan Goswami(supra), the Apex Court has held that this was a case where multiple FIRs' were registered arising out of the same cause of action in different States, hence, it was held that filing of such multiple FIRs causes the intervention into petitioner's right as a citizen and, therefore, fair treatment under Article 14 of the Constitution and freedom to conduct an independent portrayal of views under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India is warranted.
16. In the present case as well, subsequent FIRs' have arisen out of the same incident and have been registered in the District of Dhar in different police stations for the same offence. Thus, it is settled that subsequent FIRs for different offences committed in the course of same transaction for offences arising as a consequence of prior offences is not permissible.
17. In view of the above, as well as in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of T.T. Antony(supra), different FIRs' in respect of the same cognizable offence cannot be allowed to continue any further .The prosecution launched against the petitioner is an abuse of process of law.
1 8 . Accordingly, all the seven FIRs' bearing Crime No(s). 391/2019, 424/2019, 439/2019, 289/2019, 13/2020, 30/2020 and 229/2020 registered at Police Station(s) as detailed in para 1 hereinabove and consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.
19. The writ petition stands allowed. No order as to cost.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: SEHAR HASEEN Signing time: 8/28/2023 1:41:04 PM 9Let copy of the order passed today be sent to the Courts concerned for necessary compliance.
C.C. as per rules.
(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE sh Signature Not Verified Signed by: SEHAR HASEEN Signing time: 8/28/2023 1:41:04 PM