High Court
Legal Reasoning
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD18 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.77 OF 20221Aabasaheb Vasantrao Jadhav,Age 46 yrs., Occ. Agri.,2Nivrutti Machhindra Mote,Age 47 yrs., Occ. Agri.,3Pramod Bhaurao Pawar,Age 50 yrs., Occ. Agri.,4Kailas Tukaram Gaikwad,Age 48 yrs., Occ. Agri.,5Namdev Baburao Bhoge,Age 43 yrs., Occ. Agri.,6Manik Madhav Mote,Age 48 yrs., Occ. Agri.,7Rohidas Laxman Kardile,Age 52 yrs., Occ. Agri.,8Mirabai w/o Sunil Mote,Age 48 yrs., Occ. Agri.,All applicants are r/o Wadala Bahiroba,Tq. Newasa, Dist. Ahmednagar. … Applicants… Versus …1The State of MaharashtraThrough Police Inspector,Police Station, Newasa,Tq. Newasa, Dist. Ahmednagar.
Legal Reasoning
218_Cri.Appln_77_2022+12The Police Inspector,Police Station, Shani Shingnapur,Tq. Newasa, Dist. Ahmednagar. 3Laxman Namdev Ishtake,Age 46 yrs., Occ. Agri.,R/o New Kaygaon, Tq. Gangapur,Dist. Aurangabad. 4Sharad Bhausaheb Mote,Age 34 yrs., Occ. Agri.,R/o Wadala Bahiroba, Tq. Newasa,Dist. Ahmednagar. 5Pandurang Ananda Thombre,Age 58 yrs., Occ. Agri.,R/o Kharwandi, Tq. Newasa,At present r/o near Newasa Court,Tq. Newasa, Dist. Ahmednagar. … Respondents...Mr. R.R. Karpe, Advocate for applicantsMr. G.A. Kulkarni, APP for respondent Nos.1 and 2Mr. G.J. Pahilwan, Advocate for respondent No.3Mr. V.B. Jagtap, Advocate for respondent No.4Mr. A.B. Chormal, Advocate for respondent No.5...WITHCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.103 OF 20221Muktabai w/o Nivrutti Mote,Age 47 yrs., Occ. Household, 318_Cri.Appln_77_2022+12Aabasaheb Vasantrao Jadhav,Age 46 yrs., Occ. Agri.,3Rohidas Haribhau Mote,Age 47 yrs., Occ. Agri.,4Kailas Tukaram Gaikwad,Age 48 yrs., Occ. Agri.,5Anil Baburao Pawar,Age 43 yrs., Occ. Agri.,6Dhairyashil Keshav Survase,Age 48 yrs., Occ. Agri.,7Namdev Baburao Bhoge,Age 43 yrs., Occ. Agri.,8Manik Madhav Mote,Age 48 yrs., Occ. Agri.,All applicants are r/o Wadala Bahiroba,Tq. Newasa, Dist. Ahmednagar. … Applicants… Versus …1The State of MaharashtraThrough Police Inspector,Police Station, Newasa,Tq. Newasa, Dist. Ahmednagar. 2The Police Inspector,Police Station, Shani Shingnapur,Tq. Newasa, Dist. Ahmednagar. 3Ramdas Madhav Korde,Age 76 yrs., Occ. Agri., 418_Cri.Appln_77_2022+1R/o Khedlekajali, Tq. Newasa,Dist. Ahmednagar. 4Balasaheb Dhondiram Phatke,Age 68 yrs., Occ. Agri.,R/o Kharwandi, Tq. Newasa,Dist. Ahmednagar. … Respondents...Mr. R.R. Karpe, Advocate for applicantsMr. G.A. Kulkarni, APP for respondent Nos.1 and 2Mr. A.B. Chormal, Advocate for respondent No.4...CORAM :SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI & SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ.DATE:23rd JULY, 2025ORDER : (PER : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.)1Both these applications are in respect of directions to club thesubsequent First Information Reports. The point involved is same and,therefore, those are taken up together. 2In Criminal Application No.77 of 2022 applicants are the originalaccused against whom separate First Information Reports have been lodged 518_Cri.Appln_77_2022+1by respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5. Respondent No.3 has filed First InformationReport vide Crime No.729/2020 with Police Station, Newasa, Dist.Ahmednagar on 15.09.2020 for the offence punishable under Sections 420,120-B, 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and underSection 3 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in FinancialEstablishments) Act, 1999 (for the sake of brevity hereinafter referred to as“the M.P.I.D. Act”). Respondent No.4 has filed First Information Report videCrime No.45/2021 with Police Station, Newasa on 25.01.2021 for the offencepunishable under Section 3 of the M.P.I.D. Act and under Sections 420, 406,409 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Respondent No.5 hasfiled First Information Report vide Crime No.10 of 2021 with Police Station,Shani Shingnapur, Tq. Newasa on 20.01.2021 for the offence punishableunder Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 13 of the M.P.I.D. Act and under Sections402, 406, 408, 409, 417, 418, 419, 420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 426, 427, 465,466, 468, 471, 474, 477, 477-A, 120-B, 107, 108, 110, 111, 504, 506, 109read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3In Criminal Application No.103 of 2022 applicants are the same,however, they say that respondent No.3 has filed First Information Reportvide Crime No.497/2019 on 24.07.2019 with Police Station, Newasa for theoffence punishable under Section 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian 618_Cri.Appln_77_2022+1Penal Code and respondent No.4 has then lodged First Information Reportvide Crime No.9/2021 on 19.01.2021 with Police Station, Shani Shingnapur,Tq. Newasa for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 13of the M.P.I.D. Act and under Sections 402, 406, 408, 409, 417, 418, 419,420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 426, 427, 465, 466, 468, 471, 474, 477, 477-A,120-B, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the IndianPenal Code. 4Heard learned Advocate Mr. R.R. Karpe for applicants andlearned APP Mr. G.A. Kulkarni for respondent Nos.1 and 2, in both matters.Heard learned Advocate Mr. G.J. Pahilwan for respondent No.3 and learnedAdvocate Mr. V.B. Jagtap for respondent No.4 in Criminal Application No.77of 2022. Heard learned Advocate Mr. A.B. Chormal for respondent No.5 inCriminal Application No.77 of 2022 as well as for respondent No.4 inCriminal Application No.103 of 2022. 5Learned Advocate for applicants submits that it is settled canonof law that similar First Information Reports against the same accusedpersons having identical allegations is wholly unsustainable andimpermissible. The applicants are the office bearers and ManagingCommittee members of Bhairavnath Co-operative Society Limited. It isalleged that upon the assurances or promises the informants had deposited 718_Cri.Appln_77_2022+1amount in Fixed Deposit and in spite of maturity the amount was notreturned to informants. The informants, therefore, say that applicants havecheated them. Perusal of those First Information Reports would give thesame picture and, therefore, the second First Information Report is notmaintainable. He relies on the decision in T.T. Antony vs. State of Kerala andothers [(2001) 6 SCC 181], wherein it has been held that a second FirstInformation Report in a case which is not a cross case, violates Article 21 ofthe Constitution of India. He also relies on Surender Kaushik and others vs.State of Uttar Pradesh and others [(2013) 5 SCC 148]. The applicantscannot be asked to run from pillar to post to defend themselves in the secondFirst Information Report. The third First Information Report vide CrimeNo.10/2021 was outcome of private complaint, wherein order under Section156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was allowed by learned JudicialMagistrate First Class, Newasa. In Criminal Writ Petition No.1595 of 2019about four depositors had approached this Court and prayed for transfer theinvestigation from Police Station, Gangapur to competent officer. The saidinvestigation has been transferred to Economic Offences Wing at Aurangabadand, therefore, this Court disposed of writ petition by order dated 27.02.2020directing the State Government to see whether all matters regarding theMulti-state Co-operative Society can be handed over for the investigation toEconomic Offences Wing, Ahmednagar. Accordingly, now the investigation is 818_Cri.Appln_77_2022+1looked after by Economic Offences Wing, Ahmednagar. All the offences arethen transferred to the same investigating agency. Another Criminal WritPetition No.1824 of 2019 was filed on behalf of eight depositors before thisCourt seeking directions to lodge First Information Report against theManaging Committee members of the society i.e. present applicants. Thatpetition came to be disposed of on 26.02.2020 with direction to concernedPolice Station to register crime on the basis of complaint given by one of thepetitioners. Now, in one of the cases i.e. in Criminal Application No.77 of2022 respondent No.4 has been shown as witness, whereas he has filed hisown First Information Report separately. Therefore, there would beduplication of the evidence, which would affect the fundamental rights ofapplicants and, therefore, he has prayed for clubbing of First InformationReports. 6Learned APP as well as learned Advocates appearing for allrespective respondents have strongly opposed the applications and submittedthat each informant has his own grievance. The amount that was depositedby them was separate amount and, therefore, the separate First InformationReports are maintainable. Now, the investigating agency is same and SpecialCourt before whom the case under the M.P.I.D. Act would stand is same i.e.Special Court under the M.P.I.D. Act / Additional Sessions Judge, Newasa, 918_Cri.Appln_77_2022+1Dist. Ahmednagar. Therefore, there is absolutely no necessity to give anysuch directions and clubbing of First Information Reports. 7The first and the foremost fact that is required to be consideredhere is that the transaction of each informant is separate with Multi-state Co-operative Society. Now, what role was played by each of the applicants is adifferent question and since the present applications are not for quashment,we need not go into the same. What has been prayed is the clubbing, then itis required to be seen, whether it is necessary to club all the First InformationReports. An accused has no right as to how the investigation should be doneor by whom it should be done. That is the prerogative of the State and onlyin certain circumstances the informant may come to this Court for change ofinvestigating agency, if there appears to be mala fides on the part ofInvestigating Officer. The limited right may be available to applicants tochallenge subsequent First Information Report and accused may also ask forclubbing of First Information Reports in certain circumstances only. Now, weare required to consider, as to whether other First Information Reports wereuncalled for. Here, each of the informants is saying that he or she has beencheated. He is the separate depositor to whom a promise was made that hisor her amount would be returned after a particular period. However, thoseamounts have not been given. In some matters the offence under the M.P.I.D. 1018_Cri.Appln_77_2022+1Act is not invoked at this stage, however, certainly, the facts are there. Thefacts in each case are also somewhat different. When the allegationsregarding preparation of forged receipts regarding extension of the time orpreparation of renewal of the Fixed Deposits has been made, thoseallegations would be restricted to against the accused persons qua the saidinformant and, therefore, in our opinion there is absolutely no bar for theseparate First Information Reports. We will not call it as the second FirstInformation Report. We would like to rely on the decision in State ofRajasthan vs. Surendra Singh Rathore in Criminal Appeal No. ……… of 2025(arising out of SLP (Cri.) No.16358 of 2024) decided by Hon’ble SupremeCourt on 19.02.2025, wherein taking into consideration the earlier decisionsincluding T.T. Antony (supra), Surender Kaushik (supra) it has been observedthat - “9From the above conspectus of judgments, inter alia, thefollowing principles emerge regarding the permissibility of theregistration of a second FIR: 9.1When the second FIR is counter-complaint or presents a rivalversion of a set of facts, in reference to which an earlier FIR alreadystands registered. 9.2When the ambit of the two FIRs is different even though theymay arise from the same set of circumstances. 9.3When investigation and/or other avenues reveal the earlier FIRor set of facts to be part of a larger conspiracy. 1118_Cri.Appln_77_2022+19.4When investigation and/or persons related to the incidentbring to the light hitherto unknown facts or circumstances. 9.5Where the incident is separate; offences are similar ordifferent.”Present cases fall under ‘9.5’. Now, the investigation is by thesame agency and cases would be tried by one Court. Under suchcircumstance, no case is made out for exercise of powers of this Court underSection 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Both applications standrejected. ( SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. ) ( SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. ) agd