Ritesh Ajmera vs State Of Madhya Pradesh & Others

The petitioner before this Court, who is an accused in large number of criminal cases, has filed this present petition for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the Station House Officer, Police Station - Crime Branch and Station House Officer, Police Station - Lasudia not to register any fresh F.I.R. against the petitioner in respect of the complaints already filed with either of them in relation to sale of plots in Phoenix Township. Other reliefs have also been prayed for in the matter.

The petitioner's contention is that in the year 2007, a Company was incorporated in the name of 'Phoenix Devcon' for the purposes of developing a township called 'Phoenix Town', Madhya Pradesh and the petitioner was Director of the Company. The petitioner has stated that there were complaints lodged against the petitioner on account of failure to hand over the plots and large number of First Information Reports have been registered against the petitioner though they are all arising out of 'Phoenix Township. The petitioner's grievance is that subsequent F.I.Rs. in respect of the same subject matter deserve to be quashed and the respondents be directed to probe all the cases in a singular F.I.R.

Heavy reliance has been placed upon a judgment delivered in the case of Amab Ranjan Goswami v/s Union of India W.P.(Cri.) No.130/2020 decided on 19.05.2020. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon judgments delivered in the cases of Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v/s Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2013) 6 SCC 348, T.T. Antony v/s The State of Kerela reported in (2001) 6 SCC 181, Srichand K. Kherwani v/s The State of Maharashtra reported in (1967) 1 SCR 595, The State of Andhra Pradesh v/s Cheemalapati Ganeshwara Rao reported in (1964) 3 SCR 294, Chandi Prasad Singh v/s The State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (1995) 2 SCR 1035, S. Swamirathnam v/s The State of Madras reported in AIR 1957 SC 340 and Kadiri Kunhahammad v/s The State of Madras reported in AIR 1960 SC 661.

On the issue of maintainability also, reliance has been placed upon the judgment delivered in the cases of Narinderjit Singh Sahni & Another v/s Union of India & Others reported in (2002) 2 SCC 210 and Satinder Singh Bhasin v/s The Government (NCT of Delhi) & Others reported in (2019) 10 SCC 800.

The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

7.1. Issue appropriate writ, direction or order, directing the respondent No.3 (Police Station Crime Branch, Indore) & respondent No.4 (Police Station Lasudia, Indore) not to register any fresh FIRs against the petitioner with respect ot the complaints already filed with either of them in relation of sale of plots in Phoenix Town;

7.2. Issue appropriate writ, or direction or order directing the respondent No.3 (Police Station Crime Branch, Indore) & Respondent No.4 (Police Station Lasudia, Nodre) not to register any fresh FIRs against the petitioenr with regard to any fresh complaints that mauy be received in relation to sale of plots in Phoenix Town and if any complaints are received then they should be clubbed with 1st Indore FIR registered at Police Station Crime Branch Indore and then the same be investigated in accordance with law.

7.3. Issue appropriate writ, direction or order, restraining the respondent No.4 (Ploice Station, Lasudia, Indore) from carrying out any further investigation in FIR No.1410/2019 U/Ss. 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC, FIR No.1413/2019 U/Ss. 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of the IPC, FIR No.1414/2019 U/Ss. 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of the IPC, FIR No.1424/2019 U/Ss. 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of the IPC and FIR No.1432/2019 U/Ss. 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of the IPC.

7.4. Issue any other appropriate writ, direction or order, quashing FIR No.526/2018 U/Ss. 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 and 120B of the IPC, FIR No.1410/2019 U/Ss. 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC, FIR No.1413/2019 U/Ss. 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of the IPC, FIR No.1414/2019 U/Ss. 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of the IPC, FIR No.1424/2019 U/Ss. 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of the IPC and FIR No.1432/2019 U/Ss. 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of the IPC, all registered by the Police Station Lasudia Indore against the petitioner and directing that they be clubbed with 1st Indore FIR registered at Police Station Crime Branch Indore and then the same be investigated in accordance with law; and

7.5. Issue any other appropriate writ, direction or order, which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case; and

7.6. Award costs of this Writ Petition to the petitioner.

Learned Additional Advocate General appearing on advance notice for the respondents / State has argued before this Court that the judgment relied upon in the case of Arnab Ranjan Goswami (supra) is distinguishable on facts. In the aforesaid case, on the basis of one statement made by the Journalist, F.I.Rs. were registered across the country and in those circumstances, the judgment was delivered. Whereas, in the present case, the petitioner has played fraud and has committed cheating with individual persons. The plots in question in respect of all the complainants are different, the amount paid by the complainants is different and as an independent act of cheating has been done by the petitioner with different complainants, F.I.Rs. have rightly been registered against the petitioner. It has also been argued that prayer made by the petitioner restraining the State from registering the F.I.R. is unheard of. The petitioner wants an order like anticipatory bail in the matter of registration of F.I.R.

Learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents / State has placed reliance upon several judgments delivered in the cases of State v/s Khimji Bhai Jadega reported in 2019 SCC OnLine Del 9060, Manoj Kumar Goyal v/s The State of Madhya Pradesh & Others (M.Cr.C. No.15521/2019), Manohar Lal Sharma v/s Principal Secretary & Others reported in AIR 2014 SC 666, D. Venkatsubramaniam & Other v/s M.K. Krishnamchari & Another reported in 2009 (10) SCC 488, Sakiri Vasu v/s The State of Uttar Pradesh & Others reported in 2008 (2) SCC 409, M.C. Abraham & Another v/s The State of Madhya Pradesh & Others reported in 2003 (2) SCC 649 and The State of Punjab & Another v/s Rajesh Syal reported in 2002 (8) SCC 158.

Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.

The petitioner before this Court has prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents / State not to register F.I.Rs. against the petitioner. It has also been prayed that all the matter should be consolidated and the investigating agency / police be directed to investigate only one F.I.R. pleading in one charge-sheet. In the present case, the petitioner has committed various acts of allurement, cheating, forgery, etc. etc. with various persons. The amount paid by various persons is different, the plots, which were promised to various persons are different, and therefore, by no stretch of imagination, it can be held that the act of the accused forms part of the same transaction. Each and every transaction is independent of each other, and therefore, the arguments canvased by learned counsel for the petitioner are misplaced.

Chapter - VII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 provides that upon disclosure of information in relation to commission of a cognizable offence, the police is bound to register the F.I.R. The registration of F.I.R. sets into motion and process of investigation. The same culminates into filing of final report by the police officers before the Magistrate. Thus, in respect of every F.I.R., there has to be a separate final report.

In the present case, the complainants have lodged F.I.Rs. against the petitioner and each and every transaction alleged in the matter is an independent transaction, and therefore, such a clubbing, as prayed for, is impermissible in law.

This Court, keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, as each and every transaction is independent of the other, does not find any reason to issue writ, order or direction, as prayed for.

Resultantly, the admission is declined. Certified copy, as per rules.