Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Bhanwar Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on 20 August, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:36474]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 1869/2025
Bhanwar Singh S/o Shri Bal Singh Rathore, Aged About 72
Years, R/o Girab District Barmer Presently Residing At House No.
684 P.w.d. Colony, Goyali Circle Sirohi Ps Kotwali Sirohi
(Rajasthan)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary To The
Government Department Of Home Government Of
Rajasthan Secretariat Jaipur
2. Superintendent Of Police, Jalore
3. Superintendent Of Police, Pali
4. Superintendent Of Police, Sirohi
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kanti Lal Thakur
Mr. Mool Singh Panwar
For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Chandawat, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT
Order
Reserved On: 06/08/2025
Pronounced On: 20/08/2025
1. The instant Criminal Writ Petition has been preferred on behalf
of the petitioner/accused of the case, seeking the indulgence of
this Court for issuance of certain directions for conducting
consolidation of trials in the matters filed against him.
2. Briefly stating, the facts of the case as narrated in the petition
are that one Sarvodaya Co-operative Society Limited (hereinafter
to be referred as “Society”) was incorporated in the year 2009 as
per the provisions of Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 2001
with main object to carry out business of accepting financial
deposits contributed by its member and utilizing the said deposits
(Downloaded on 20/08/2025 at 07:43:06 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:36474] (2 of 7) [CRLW-1869/2025]
for lending to those who seeks loan as per the by-laws of the
Society. The said Society disbursed loan to various persons in
contravention to the rules and by-laws of the society, which later
could not be recovered. Consequently, the society plunged into
serious financial hardships and was unable to pay back its
depositors when they sought refund of their deposits resulting into
closure of all the branches of the society w.e.f. 30.06.2014.
Thereafter, as many as 33 FIRs were lodged at different
districts against the said Society and its office bearers including
the petitioner with regard to the allegations of cheating, criminal
breach of trust, criminal conspiracy and other offences of IPC
including the offence under Sections 420, 406, 408/409, and
120-B of IPC. The petitioner is forced to mark his presence for
hearing on different dates in different cases at different districts
which makes him unable to contest these cases properly, thus,
amounts to violation of his fundamental right of a fair and speedy
trial.
3. Learned ounsel for the petitioner has reiterated the issue
mentioned in the petition seeking relief and protection of the
petitioner’s fundamental rights. He further submits the grievance
of the petitioner and his inability to defend himself in numerous
cases at various places filed against him arose out of a common
cause of action, that is, inability of Society, to pay back the
depositors, while the petitioner was working as its Chief Executive
Officer & Chief General Manager. It is prayed by the counsel for
the petitioner that 33 different complaints have been lodged by
different complainants at different Police Stations, however, the
(Downloaded on 20/08/2025 at 07:43:06 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:36474] (3 of 7) [CRLW-1869/2025]
evidence will be the same in all these matters as the accusations
are same. Hence, this Criminal Writ petition has been filed by the
petitioner to consolidate the trials pending against him under
Sections 219 and 407 of Cr.P.C arising out of common cause of
action, in one court at District Jalore/Sirohi.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the said prayer and
submitted that the trial is going on in all the cases.
5. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar by the
learned counsel for the Parties and perused the material as made
available to this Court.
6. The issue involved in this Criminal Writ Petition has been dealt
by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Vikram Singh
v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. in [S.B. Criminal Writ Petition
No. 1479/2023] vide order dated 23.08.2024, the relevant part
of which is reproduced hereinbelow for the sake of ready
reference:-
“11. After the discussion over procrastination of the Judicial
Proceedings while keeping the accused detained, now the other
aspect of the case would be whether clubbing or consolidating
several cases into one is permissible in law. Consolidation of
cases is not a foreign thing, the analogy can be taken from the
statutory provision, Section 219 of the Criminal Procedure Code
(Cr.P.C) which provides:
219. Three offences of same kind within year
may be charged together. (1) When a person is
accused of more offences than one of the same
kind committed within the space of twelve months
from the first to the last of such offences, whether
in respect of the same person or not, he may be
charged with, and tried at one trial for, any
number of them not exceeding three.(2) Offences
are of the same kind when they are punishable
with the same amount of punishment under the(Downloaded on 20/08/2025 at 07:43:06 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:36474] (4 of 7) [CRLW-1869/2025]same section of the Indian Penal Code (45 of
1860) or of any special or local laws: Provided
that, for the purposes of this section, an offence
punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal
Code (45 of 1860) shall be deemed to be an
offence of the same kind as an offence punishable
under Section 380 of the said Code, and that an
offence punishable under any section of the said
Code, or of any special or local law, shall be
deemed to be an offence of the same kind as an
attempt to commit such offence, when such
attempt is an offence.
Section 219(1), states that if a person is accused
of committing three similar offences within a year,
all of the offences may be charged and tried at the
same time. Section 219(2) discusses offences of a
similar nature that are also punishable with a
similar degree of punishment, this section on
charge joinder is not persuasive in nature, it only
allows joint trial of charges in certain
circumstances. The specific provision in the code
of criminal procedure speaks about more than one
offence of the same kind within a year by an
accused then they can be charged with and tried
upto three of those offences in one trial. This
provision would apply whether the offences were
committed by the same person or not, it doesn’t
matter. This provision allows clubbing of 3 criminal
cases if committed within a year and the nature of
the offence is the same. The express provision
made in the criminal procedure code restricts the
consolidation of cases up to total number of three.
What to do if the nature of the charge is the same,
the accused is the same, the primary cause of
action is the same, the nature of accusation in all
cases is the same and they are committed within
one year but the cases are more than three; there
is no express provision in this regard but there is a
mechanism or permissibility of clubbing/joining
the different cases. This means the law recognizes
clubbing or consolidation of a particular number of
cases against the accused where the nature of the
crime is the same, however, it limits and restricts
its ambit only upto three cases if committed within
one year. In this case, the nature of the
accusation and the accused are the same in every
(Downloaded on 20/08/2025 at 07:43:06 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:36474] (5 of 7) [CRLW-1869/2025]
FIR but the place of registration is different and
widely spread in 16 districts. So, the law does
have a mechanism for consolidation, but no
express provision is provided to deal with the
issue related to multiple cases. It is silent on this
issue where more than 250 cases in 16 different
districts are registered against a particular
accused arising out of the same accusation. Still,
when there is no remedy under any statutory
provision, then the Doctrine of Ubi Jus Ibi
Remedium, comes into play.
7. This Court is of the opinion that, in the case at hand, 33
different complaints have been filed against the petitioner by
different complainants for the offence committed by him arising
out of a common cause of action. In this view of the matter, it is
felt apt to consider the judgement ibid as well as Sections 219 and
407 of Cr.P.C.
8. Accordingly, the instant Criminal Writ petition filed under Article
226 of the Constitution of India is allowed.
9. As an upshot of the discussion made herein above, this court
directs clubbing/consolidation of all 33 cases in the following
manner:
(a) The District and Sessions Judge, Jalore is directed
to make all necessary arrangements by calling the
files/entire record from the places where they are
pending presently, to send all the material of the
cases mentioned below to the Court of Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Jalore for further trial. The particulars of
the cases are as follows:
Sr. Police FIR No. Trial pending before
No. Station Court
1. Raniwara 125/2014
2. Raniwara 126/2014
3. Raniwara 62/2015
4. Raniwara 95/2015
(Downloaded on 20/08/2025 at 07:43:06 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:36474] (6 of 7) [CRLW-1869/2025]
5. Raniwara 126/2016
6. Raniwara 23/2017
Judicial Magistrate,
7. Raniwara 24/2017 Raniwara, District Jalore
8. Raniwara 19/2019
9. Raniwara 20/2019
10. Raniwara 21/2019
11. Raniwara 22/2019
12. Karda 6/2016
13. Bagoda 55/2016
14. Bagoda 92/2016 Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Bhinmal,
15. Bagoda 93/2016 District Jalore
16. Bagoda 94/2016
17. Sanchore 255/2014 Additional Chief Judicial
18. Sanchore 494/2014 Magistrate, Bhinmal,
District Jalore
19. Sayla 49/2015
20. Sayla 50/2015
Additional Chief Judicial
21. Sayla 51/2015 Magistrate, Bhinmal,
22. Sayla 52/2015 District Jalore
23. Jalore 11/2016
24. Ahore 173/2015
25. Ahore 150/2014 Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Bhinmal,
26. Ahore 50/2016 District Jalore
27. Ahore 52/2018
(b) The District and Sessions Judge, Pali is directed to
make all necessary arrangements by calling the
files/entire record from the places where they are
pending presently, to send all the material of the
cases mentioned below to the Court of Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Pali for further trial. The particulars of the
cases are as follows:
Sr. Police FIR No. Trial pending before Court
No. Station
1. Takhatgarh 1/2015
2. Takhatgarh 2/2015 Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Ahore, District
3. Sumerpur 320/20 Pali
14
(c) The District and Sessions Judge, Sirohi is directed
to make all necessary arrangements by calling the(Downloaded on 20/08/2025 at 07:43:06 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:36474] (7 of 7) [CRLW-1869/2025]files/entire record from the places where they are
pending presently, to send all the material of the
cases mentioned below to the Court of Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Sirohi for further trial. The particulars of
the cases are as follows:
Sr. Police FIR No. Trial pending before Court
No. Station
1. Mandar 19/2015 Judicial Magistrate, Reodar,
2. Reodar 31/2015 District Sirohi
3. Sirohi 114/2015 Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Sirohi
10. The trial of all the cases arising out of all the 33 complaints
shall be conducted in the respective districts as mentioned above;
however, record of each case shall be maintained separately.
11. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on
the merits of the allegations contained in the above referred
cases.
12. Accordingly, the instant criminal writ petition is allowed; in
aforementioned terms. All pending applications if any are disposed
of.
13. A copy of this order be directly sent to the Registrar Judicial
for ensuring compliance of this order by issuing necessary
direction to the Courts concerned to do the needful as directed
herein. A copy of this order shall also be forwarded to the Director
General of Police, Rajasthan for compliance of the order for
issuance of direction to officers concerned for their future course
of action.
(MUKESH RAJPUROHIT),J
145-Hanuman/-
(Downloaded on 20/08/2025 at 07:43:06 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)