AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
(Per : Kamal Khata, J) :-
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of the parties.
Petitioner is an accused in First Information Report (FIR) registered vide C.R. No. 209 of 2019 with the Economic Offence Wing, (EOW), Nashik. The offences registered against the Petitioner are under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 201, 120B, 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’) read with Sections 3 and 4 of Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 (for short, ‘MPID Act’) and Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 (for short, ‘PCMC Act’).
By this Petition, the Petitioner seeks clubbing of the following ten FIRs :
| Sr. No. | FIR No. | Police Station |
| 1. | 59/2020 | Economic Offence Wing, Dhule |
| 2. | 109/2020 | Ambad Police Station, Nashik |
| 3. | 156/2019 | Jaikheda Police Station, Nashik |
| 4. | 86/2019 | Pathardi Police Station, Ahilyanagar |
| 5. | 273/2020 | Parali Police Station, Beed |
| 6. | 251/2019 | Phaltan Police Station, Satara |
| 7. | 51/2020 | Bhandup Police Station, Mumbai |
| 8. | 201/2019 | EOW Pune (Aalephata P.S) |
| 9. | 16/2021 | Sonai Police Station, Ahilyanagar |
| 10. | 262/2022 | Ulhasnagar Police Station, Thane |
Mr. Parmar, learned Advocate for the Petitioner, submitted that the Petitioner is the Director and Promoter of the three business entities, namely, (i) Ujjwal Agro Multi State Co-operative Society Private Limited, (ii) Shri Mauli Multi State Credit Co-operative Society Private Limited, and (iii) M/s Sankalp Sidhi Product Private Limited. These entities are engaged in the business of cooperative credit societies and direct selling.
4.1) He submitted that, prior to the registration of the first FIR, there was not even a single complaint against any of the aforesaid entities by any customer. The complaints came to be registered at the instance of one Ganesh Kankal, a self-proclaimed RTI activist who attempted to extort money from the Petitioner. He was not only caught red-handed by the police while accepting money but the police also found two pistols and 30 live cartridges, in his possession. Offences under Sections 384, 386, 506, 170, 171 and 419 read with Section 25(3) of the Arms Act, 1959 (for short, ‘Arms Act’) were registered against him vide C.R. No. 113 of 2016.
4.2) After his release, Ganesh Kankal, seeking revenge, launched a campaign against the Petitioner. He lodged a complaint with the Commissioner of Police, Nashik which was eventually closed for want of substance. He thereafter spread misinformation about the Petitioner and his businesses, thereby creating panic amongst the customers/ account holders. Through false representations, he alarmed some of them, into lodging complaints, which led the EOW, Nashik to place a debit freeze on the accounts of the afore-stated entities. The debit freeze severely hampered the Petitioner’s business and delayed payments that had until then been made on time. The resulting defaults escalated and gave rise to grievances amongst customers who had previously not raised any complaints. The first FIR being C.R. No. I-209/2019 was registered with Mumbai Naka Police Station, Nashik and was investigated by EOW, Nashik.
4.3) Learned Advocate submitted that, although the alleged crime amount was Rs. 5.87 crores, the Petitioner’s bank accounts, properties, vehicles, and other assets, valued at more than Rs.40 crore, have been attached by the Investigating Agency.
4.4) Learned Advocate submitted that, all ten FIRs rest on identical allegations and the Petitioner has been granted either regular or anticipatory bail in each of them. Each FIR alleges that the Petitioner accepted deposits from the Complainants on the promise of high returns and after making part payments, stopped paying altogether, whereupon the Complainants lodged the FIRs for non-repayment of their deposits.
4.5) Learned Advocate further submitted that the Petitioner has been in custody for more than four years since the registration of the first FIR and that, despite this, attempts continue to be made to file fresh complaints against him. Petitioner has been subjected to multiple prosecutions solely in his capacity as the Director and Promoter of the aforesaid three business entities.
4.6) Learned Advocate submitted that, if the FIRs are permitted to be prosecuted before ten different Courts, the Petitioner will have to defend himself in each of them, although the allegation in all the FIRs is substantially the same, namely, the role played by the Petitioner as the Director and Promoter of the aforesaid entities. He therefore prayed that, in the interest of justice, all the FIRs be clubbed together and tried at one place before one Court.
4.7) In support of his contentions, learned Advocate relied upon the judgments in the cases of T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala & Others1; and Radhey Shyam v. State of Haryana & Ors.,2.
We have heard learned Advocate for the Petitioner, Mr. Parmar, and learned APP for the Respondent-State and have also perused the entire record.
The law on clubbing of FIRs and transferring them to a Special Court for a common trial in offences registered under a similar scheme floated by a particular company or a group of companies is now well settled.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State (NCT) of Delhi v Khimji Bhai Jadeja3 while considering the law so far, in paragraph 16, held as under :
“In Amanat Ali v. State of Karnataka, reported in 2023 14 SCC 801 following the ratio decidendi in Amish Devgan v Union of India reported in 2021 1 SCC 1, this Court exercised power under Article 142 of the Constitution and consolidated six FIRs registered in the State to be tried together, as multiplicity of proceedings would not be in the larger public interest or in the interest of the State. Again, in Ravinder Singh Sidhu v. State of Punjab, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1164 this Court observed that it is now fairly well settled that multiplicity of proceedings would not be in the larger public interest and the correct course of action would be to merge the later FIRs with the earliest FIR with the State's consent. On the same lines, in Alok Kumar v. State of Bihar, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1728 this Court noted that 81 FIRs were registered and directed the first FIR to be treated as the main FIR and all other FIRs to be treated as statements under Section 161 CrPC. Earlier, in Satinder Singh Bhasin v. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in 2023 14 SCC 805 a 3-Judge Bench of this Court followed the principle enunciated in Amish Devgan (supra) and clubbed, with consent, the 118 FIRs relating to the Bike Bot scheme registered across the State of Uttar Pradesh and one FIR registered by the Economic Offences Wing, New Delhi, by exercising power under Article 142 of the Constitution. Before that, in Radhey Shyam v. State of Haryana, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1935 the very same 3-Judge Bench took note of multiple FIRs in connection with a network marketing scheme in as many as 12 States and directed the clubbing of all the FIRs, which could thereafter proceed to one trial as far as possible, duly noting that all the States concerned voiced no objection to such course of action.”
The aforesaid judgments’ set out the salient features that necessitated the transfer of FIRs to a Single Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Alok Kumar (supra) has held that, the first FIR is to be treated as the main FIR and all other FIRs to be treated as statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short, ‘Cr.PC’).
In the present case, we find that the allegations in all ten FIRs are substantially the same. Each FIR alleges that the Petitioner accepted deposits from the Complainants on the promise of high returns and after making part payments, the Petitioner stopped paying altogether, leading to lodgment of FIRs for non-repayment of their deposits.
In our view, clubbing of FIRs would facilitate the efficient administration of justice to expedite the trial of all the cases mentioned above.
Following the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the above cases, we deem it fit to allow the Petition in terms of prayer clauses (a), (b), and (c).
We direct Registrar (Judicial-I) to forward a copy of this judgment to all the Courts where charge-sheets have been filed, in order to transfer all such cases to the Court trying the case arising out of in C.R. No. 209 of 2019 registered with Mumbai Naka Police Station, Nashik.
With regard to the recording of evidence of witnesses / investors, the learned Judge of Trial Court may consider permitting them to give evidence through video conferencing, if deemed appropriate.
13.1) In cases where witnesses remain physically present, the Court would ensure that the witnesses are not required to repeatedly attend the Court for recording of evidence.
In all cases where the witnesses are required to remain physically present in Court, the Petitioner shall bear the expenses of all modes of travel, food and stay (if required) to be incurred by the witnesses. It is clarified that the Petitioner shall provide the First Class or Second Class Air-Conditioned train tickets, whichever is cheaper, Rs. 2,000/- per day for food and stay in at least ‘A-Grade’ hotel.
The exercise of transferring the cases to the Court at Nashik shall be completed, preferably within a period of 30 days from the date of uploading of this Judgment on the official website of High Court of Bombay.
In view of this Judgment, pending Interim Application filed therein stands disposed off.
Petition is accordingly allowed and Rule is made absolute in the above terms.