Bombay High Court
Muktabai W/O. Nivrutti Mote And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 23 July, 2025
Author: Vibha Kankanwadi
Bench: Vibha Kankanwadi
2025:BHC-AUG:22181-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
18 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.77 OF 2022
1 Aabasaheb Vasantrao Jadhav,
Age 46 yrs., Occ. Agri.,
2 Nivrutti Machhindra Mote,
Age 47 yrs., Occ. Agri.,
3 Pramod Bhaurao Pawar,
Age 50 yrs., Occ. Agri.,
4 Kailas Tukaram Gaikwad,
Age 48 yrs., Occ. Agri.,
5 Namdev Baburao Bhoge,
Age 43 yrs., Occ. Agri.,
6 Manik Madhav Mote,
Age 48 yrs., Occ. Agri.,
7 Rohidas Laxman Kardile,
Age 52 yrs., Occ. Agri.,
8 Mirabai w/o Sunil Mote,
Age 48 yrs., Occ. Agri.,
All applicants are
r/o Wadala Bahiroba,
Tq. Newasa, Dist. Ahmednagar.
... Applicants
... Versus ...
1 The State of Maharashtra
Through Police Inspector,
Police Station, Newasa,
Tq. Newasa, Dist. Ahmednagar.
2 18_Cri.Appln_77_2022+1
2 The Police Inspector,
Police Station, Shani Shingnapur,
Tq. Newasa, Dist. Ahmednagar.
3 Laxman Namdev Ishtake,
Age 46 yrs., Occ. Agri.,
R/o New Kaygaon, Tq. Gangapur,
Dist. Aurangabad.
4 Sharad Bhausaheb Mote,
Age 34 yrs., Occ. Agri.,
R/o Wadala Bahiroba, Tq. Newasa,
Dist. Ahmednagar.
5 Pandurang 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 applicants
Mr. G.A. Kulkarni, APP for respondent Nos.1 and 2
Mr. G.J. Pahilwan, Advocate for respondent No.3
Mr. V.B. Jagtap, Advocate for respondent No.4
Mr. A.B. Chormal, Advocate for respondent No.5
...
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.103 OF 2022
1 Muktabai w/o Nivrutti Mote,
Age 47 yrs., Occ. Household,
3 18_Cri.Appln_77_2022+1
2 Aabasaheb Vasantrao Jadhav,
Age 46 yrs., Occ. Agri.,
3 Rohidas Haribhau Mote,
Age 47 yrs., Occ. Agri.,
4 Kailas Tukaram Gaikwad,
Age 48 yrs., Occ. Agri.,
5 Anil Baburao Pawar,
Age 43 yrs., Occ. Agri.,
6 Dhairyashil Keshav Survase,
Age 48 yrs., Occ. Agri.,
7 Namdev Baburao Bhoge,
Age 43 yrs., Occ. Agri.,
8 Manik Madhav Mote,
Age 48 yrs., Occ. Agri.,
All applicants are
r/o Wadala Bahiroba,
Tq. Newasa, Dist. Ahmednagar.
... Applicants
... Versus ...
1 The State of Maharashtra
Through Police Inspector,
Police Station, Newasa,
Tq. Newasa, Dist. Ahmednagar.
2 The Police Inspector,
Police Station, Shani Shingnapur,
Tq. Newasa, Dist. Ahmednagar.
3 Ramdas Madhav Korde,
Age 76 yrs., Occ. Agri.,
4 18_Cri.Appln_77_2022+1
R/o Khedlekajali, Tq. Newasa,
Dist. Ahmednagar.
4 Balasaheb Dhondiram Phatke,
Age 68 yrs., Occ. Agri.,
R/o Kharwandi, Tq. Newasa,
Dist. Ahmednagar.
... Respondents
...
Mr. R.R. Karpe, Advocate for applicants
Mr. G.A. Kulkarni, APP for respondent Nos.1 and 2
Mr. A.B. Chormal, Advocate for respondent No.4
...
CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI &
SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ.
DATE : 23rd JULY, 2025
ORDER :
(PER : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.)
1 Both these applications are in respect of directions to club the
subsequent First Information Reports. The point involved is same and,
therefore, those are taken up together.
2 In Criminal Application No.77 of 2022 applicants are the original
accused against whom separate First Information Reports have been lodged
5 18_Cri.Appln_77_2022+1
by respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5. Respondent No.3 has filed First Information
Report 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 under
Section 3 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial
Establishments) 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 vide
Crime No.45/2021 with Police Station, Newasa on 25.01.2021 for the offence
punishable 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 has
filed First Information Report vide Crime No.10 of 2021 with Police Station,
Shani Shingnapur, Tq. Newasa on 20.01.2021 for the offence punishable
under Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 13 of 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, 110, 111, 504, 506, 109
read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3 In Criminal Application No.103 of 2022 applicants are the same,
however, they say that respondent No.3 has filed First Information Report
vide Crime No.497/2019 on 24.07.2019 with Police Station, Newasa for the
offence punishable under Section 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian
6 18_Cri.Appln_77_2022+1
Penal Code and respondent No.4 has then lodged First Information Report
vide 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 13
of 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 Indian
Penal Code.
4 Heard learned Advocate Mr. R.R. Karpe for applicants and
learned 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 learned
Advocate Mr. V.B. Jagtap for respondent No.4 in Criminal Application No.77
of 2022. Heard learned Advocate Mr. A.B. Chormal for respondent No.5 in
Criminal Application No.77 of 2022 as well as for respondent No.4 in
Criminal Application No.103 of 2022.
5 Learned Advocate for applicants submits that it is settled canon
of law that similar First Information Reports against the same accused
persons having identical allegations is wholly unsustainable and
impermissible. The applicants are the office bearers and Managing
Committee members of Bhairavnath Co-operative Society Limited. It is
alleged that upon the assurances or promises the informants had deposited
7 18_Cri.Appln_77_2022+1
amount in Fixed Deposit and in spite of maturity the amount was not
returned to informants. The informants, therefore, say that applicants have
cheated them. Perusal of those First Information Reports would give the
same picture and, therefore, the second First Information Report is not
maintainable. He relies on the decision in T.T. Antony vs. State of Kerala and
others [(2001) 6 SCC 181], wherein it has been held that a second First
Information Report in a case which is not a cross case, violates Article 21 of
the Constitution of India. He also relies on Surender Kaushik and others vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh and others [(2013) 5 SCC 148]. The applicants
cannot be asked to run from pillar to post to defend themselves in the second
First Information Report. The third First Information Report vide Crime
No.10/2021 was outcome of private complaint, wherein order under Section
156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was allowed by learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Newasa. In Criminal Writ Petition No.1595 of 2019
about four depositors had approached this Court and prayed for transfer the
investigation from Police Station, Gangapur to competent officer. The said
investigation has been transferred to Economic Offences Wing at Aurangabad
and, therefore, this Court disposed of writ petition by order dated 27.02.2020
directing the State Government to see whether all matters regarding the
Multi-state Co-operative Society can be handed over for the investigation to
Economic Offences Wing, Ahmednagar. Accordingly, now the investigation is
8 18_Cri.Appln_77_2022+1
looked after by Economic Offences Wing, Ahmednagar. All the offences are
then transferred to the same investigating agency. Another Criminal Writ
Petition No.1824 of 2019 was filed on behalf of eight depositors before this
Court seeking directions to lodge First Information Report against the
Managing Committee members of the society i.e. present applicants. That
petition came to be disposed of on 26.02.2020 with direction to concerned
Police Station to register crime on the basis of complaint given by one of the
petitioners. Now, in one of the cases i.e. in Criminal Application No.77 of
2022 respondent No.4 has been shown as witness, whereas he has filed his
own First Information Report separately. Therefore, there would be
duplication of the evidence, which would affect the fundamental rights of
applicants and, therefore, he has prayed for clubbing of First Information
Reports.
6 Learned APP as well as learned Advocates appearing for all
respective respondents have strongly opposed the applications and submitted
that each informant has his own grievance. The amount that was deposited
by them was separate amount and, therefore, the separate First Information
Reports are maintainable. Now, the investigating agency is same and Special
Court 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,
9 18_Cri.Appln_77_2022+1
Dist. Ahmednagar. Therefore, there is absolutely no necessity to give any
such directions and clubbing of First Information Reports.
7 The first and the foremost fact that is required to be considered
here 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 a
different 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 it
is required to be seen, whether it is necessary to club all the First Information
Reports. An accused has no right as to how the investigation should be done
or by whom it should be done. That is the prerogative of the State and only
in certain circumstances the informant may come to this Court for change of
investigating agency, if there appears to be mala fides on the part of
Investigating Officer. The limited right may be available to applicants to
challenge subsequent First Information Report and accused may also ask for
clubbing of First Information Reports in certain circumstances only. Now, we
are required to consider, as to whether other First Information Reports were
uncalled for. Here, each of the informants is saying that he or she has been
cheated. He is the separate depositor to whom a promise was made that his
or her amount would be returned after a particular period. However, those
amounts have not been given. In some matters the offence under the M.P.I.D.
10 18_Cri.Appln_77_2022+1
Act is not invoked at this stage, however, certainly, the facts are there. The
facts in each case are also somewhat different. When the allegations
regarding preparation of forged receipts regarding extension of the time or
preparation of renewal of the Fixed Deposits has been made, those
allegations would be restricted to against the accused persons qua the said
informant and, therefore, in our opinion there is absolutely no bar for the
separate First Information Reports. We will not call it as the second First
Information Report. We would like to rely on the decision in State of
Rajasthan vs. Surendra Singh Rathore in Criminal Appeal No. ……… of 2025
(arising out of SLP (Cri.) No.16358 of 2024) decided by Hon’ble Supreme
Court on 19.02.2025, wherein taking into consideration the earlier decisions
including T.T. Antony (supra), Surender Kaushik (supra) it has been observed
that –
“9 From the above conspectus of judgments, inter alia, the
following principles emerge regarding the permissibility of the
registration of a second FIR:
9.1 When the second FIR is counter-complaint or presents a rival
version of a set of facts, in reference to which an earlier FIR already
stands registered.
9.2 When the ambit of the two FIRs is different even though they
may arise from the same set of circumstances.
9.3 When investigation and/or other avenues reveal the earlier FIR
or set of facts to be part of a larger conspiracy.
11 18_Cri.Appln_77_2022+1
9.4 When investigation and/or persons related to the incident
bring to the light hitherto unknown facts or circumstances.
9.5 Where the incident is separate; offences are similar or
different.”
Present cases fall under ‘9.5’. Now, the investigation is by the
same agency and cases would be tried by one Court. Under such
circumstance, no case is made out for exercise of powers of this Court under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Both applications stand
rejected.
( SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. ) ( SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. )
agd