Rahul Modi vs M.P. State Cooperative Dairy … on 14 May, 2025

0
1

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Rahul Modi vs M.P. State Cooperative Dairy … on 14 May, 2025

Author: Vishal Dhagat

Bench: Vishal Dhagat

          NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:23063




                                                             1                             WP-16685-2025
                              IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                    AT JABALPUR
                                                         BEFORE
                                           HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT
                                                    ON THE 14th OF MAY, 2025
                                                WRIT PETITION No. 16685 of 2025
                                               RAHUL MODI AND OTHERS
                                                       Versus
                                  M.P. STATE COOPERATIVE DAIRY FEDERATION LIMITED,
                                                 BHOPAL AND OTHERS
                           Appearance:
                                   Shri Manish Dutt - Senior Advocate with Shri Mohit Chaturvedi -
                           Advocate for the petitioners.
                                   Shri Pradeep Singh - Government Advocate for the State.

                                                                 ORDER

Petitioners have filed this petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India making a prayer to consolidate following FIRs:-

(i) FIR No.326/2019, police station-Badwah, District-Khargon, under
Section-420/34 of the IPC;

(ii) FIR No.563/2019, police station-Thatipur, District-Gwalior, under

Sections 420, 406, 409, 467, 468, 471, 477(A), 120(B) of the IPC;

(iii) FIR No.1218/2020, police station-Seoni, District-Seoni, under
Sections 420/34 of the IPC and Section 4 MP P.D.I. Act;

(iv) FIR No.03/2021, police station-Kotwali, District-Mandsaur, under
Sections 420, 406, 409, 120(B) of the IPC and Section 6(1) of the MP P.D.I.
Act;

(v) FIR No.114/2021, police station-Kotwali, District-Burhanpur,

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHABANA
ANSARI
Signing time: 26-05-2025
12:11:19
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:23063

2 WP-16685-2025

under Sections 420, 409, 120(B) of the IPC and Section 5(1) of the MP
P.D.I. Act;

(vi) FIR No.178/2021, police station-Civil Line, District-Dewas, under
Sections 420, 406, 409, 120(B) of the IPC and Sections 4, 6(1), 6(2) of the
MP P.D.I. Act;

(vii) FIR No.99/2022, police station-University, District-Gwalior,
under Sections 420, 406, 409, 120(B) of the IPC and Sections 4, 6(1), 6(2) of
the MP P.D.I. Act and Section 45(S), 58(B)(5)(a) of the RBI Act;

(viii) FIR No.576/2020, police station-Khachorod, District-Ujjain,
under Section 420/34 of the IPC.

2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that

complainants had deposited money in Society which was not returned to
them, therefore, they have lodged a complaint under aforementioned
Sections. It is submitted that all complaints are similar in nature. Petitioners
are being prosecuted being Directors of the said Society. Since, offences are
similar in nature and to save inconvenience to petitioners and for early trial,
all FIRs may be consolidated together. He further submitted that petitioners
have filed WP (Criminal) No.362/2024 before Apex Court wherein liberty
was granted to petitioners to approach High Court for consolidation of cases
within each State in question.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the State/respondents opposed the
prayer for transfer of all trial to one Court. It is submitted that witnesses in
each cases are different and may be residing in different places, therefore,
trial at one place will affect the prosecution case. It is also submitted that

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHABANA
ANSARI
Signing time: 26-05-2025
12:11:19
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:23063

3 WP-16685-2025
petitioner is not covered by the judgment relied upon by him.

4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon
the judgment passed by Apex Court in case of Amish Devgan Vs. Union of
India
reported in (2021) 1 SCC 1 and Amanat Ali Vs. State of Karnataka
reported in 2023 SCC Online 1648 . It is submitted that in aforesaid cases
different FIRs were registered against the accused persons but Supreme
Court permitted trial of accused person in one place. Case of petitioner is
covered by aforesaid judgment, therefore, prosecution be directed to conduct
trial at one Court.

5. Heard the counsel for the parties.

6. The fact in this case is that petitioner society has accepted
investment from Investors but had not returned the same and allegations
were made for committing cheating, misappropriation of property and
offences mentioned above. Case relied upon by learned Senior Counsel for
petitioner i.e. Amanat Ali (Supra) is an order passed exercising power under
Article 142 of the Constitution of India. Said power can only be exercised by
Supreme Court to do complete justice with the party, therefore, no order can
be passed by this Court by placing reliance on said judgments.
In case of
Amanat Ali (Supra) reliance has been placed in case of Amish Devgan
(Supra). In said case in retaliatory major FIR has been registered by many
persons against one person for same action, therefore, there is no bar under
Code of Criminal Procedure in consolidating said FIR which has been
registered at different police stations.
First FIR is first information report and

subsequent FIR is to be treated as statement recorded under Section 162 of

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHABANA
ANSARI
Signing time: 26-05-2025
12:11:19
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:23063

4 WP-16685-2025
the Cr.P.C. Fact of case of Amish Devgan (Supra) is also different and case
of petitioner is not covered by said judgment.

7. In this case, petitioners are Directions of Company/Society. Money
has been deposited in Society by Investors/complainants. Said money has
not been returned by Society and petitioners are Directors of the Company,
therefore, there is not series of transaction which resulted into an offence but
each case is separate and incidents occurred therein are not common with
subsequent FIR. Consequences of offence also ensue where complainant
resides, therefore, benefit of Section 180 of the Cr.P.C. cannot be granted to
petitioners as complainants are different and reside in different place.
Petitioners’ case is also not covered by Section 181 (1) to 181(3) of the
Cr.P.C. which specifically deals with Dacoity, murder, kidnapping,
abduction and robbery. However, petitioners’ case may be covered under
Section 181(4) of the Cr.P.C. as offence of criminal misappropriation or
criminal breach of trust is said to have been committed along with other
offences and said offences can be tried by a Court within whose local
jurisdiction offence was committed or any part of property which is the
subject of the offence was received or retained or was required to be returned
or accounted for by the accused person. In this case, accused are Directions
and property is to be accounted for by Society. Society is having its Office at
Adarsh Tower-II, Sector Hiran, Udaipur Rajasthan, therefore, no direction
can be given by this Court for trial to be conducted at Udaipur in accordance
with provision of Section 181(4) of the Cr.P.C. Further, direction to conclude
trial in one place under State of Madhya Pradesh for crimes committed

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHABANA
ANSARI
Signing time: 26-05-2025
12:11:19
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:23063

5 WP-16685-2025
within the territorial jurisdiction of State of Madhya Pradesh can be ordered
if case of petitioners is covered under Sections 219, 220 or 221 of the Cr.P.C.

8. Offence committed by petitioners is of same kind and are
committed within period of 12 months from first to last of such offence and
three of such offences can be consolidated. In this case offence is said to
have been committed between year 2019 to 2022 and offences are more than
three in number, therefore, Section 219 of the Cr.P.C. does not have any
application in case of petitioner. Neither Section 184 of the Cr.P.C. comes to
rescue of petitioner for clubbing of FIRs to be tried together. Similarly,
benefit of Section 181(4) also cannot be granted to petitioners as offence is
not only of criminal misappropriation or criminal breach of trust but also
includes Sections 420, 409, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the IPC and also offence
punishable under Madhya Pradesh Protection of Depositors Interest Act,
2000 and Reserve Bank of India Act.

9. Section 221 of the Cr.P.C. does not have any application in case of
petitioners as there is no doubt what offence has been committed.

10. Considering aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, petition
filed by petitioners, is dismissed.

(VISHAL DHAGAT)
JUDGE

$A

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHABANA
ANSARI
Signing time: 26-05-2025
12:11:19



Source link

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here