2022 (7) TMI 1588 - SC - Indian Laws

Seeking grant of bail - clubbing of all the FIRs registered in different States for a single trial to avoid multiplicity of proceedings - HELD THAT - The offence registered in the State of West Bengal being RC/40/S/2014 dated 05.06.2015 registered with CBI/SCB/SIT Kolkata will proceed before the concerned Court in the State of West Bengal independently. Similarly the FIR registered at Pindwara Sirohi State of Rajasthan being FIR No. 338/2018 dated 12.09.2018 shall proceed before the concerned jurisdictional Court in that State itself being the only case registered in connection with the Indian Penal Code (IPC) offences in that State and cannot be clubbed with the cases pending in other States as the same will have to proceed under the special enactment of the concerned State. In each of the States where directions for clubbing of FIRs is being passed the subsequently registered FIRs shall be treated as statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). The investigating officer in criminal case arising from the first FIR in the concerned State as referred to above will be free to file supplementary chargesheet after collation of all the records concerning other FIRs in the respective States which are clubbed in terms of this order. In the event the investigating officer in other FIRs had already filed the police report under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. before the concerned Court and the concerned Court had taken cognizance thereof the said FIRs and criminal cases would also stand transferred and merged/clubbed alongwith the first criminal case registered in the respective State as referred to above to be proceeded with in accordance with law. The investigating officer in the stated case (principal case to which the subsequent FIRs would stand merged/clubbed) will be free to file supplementary chargesheet on the basis of material collated during investigation of other FIRs. All cases in the State of Maharashtra will stand clubbed with FIR No. 552/2016 dated 15.04.2016 registered with Police Station Ramnagar Chandrapur and to be tried by Special Court at Chandrapur (Maharashtra). Similarly all criminal cases arising from the FIRs filed at the different point of time in the State of Madhya Pradesh will stand clubbed with FIR No. 915/2016 dated 09.11.2016 registered with Police Station Kotwali Sehore to be tried by Special Court Sehore (Madhya Pradesh); and in the State of Chhattisgarh on the same lines will stand clubbed with FIR No. 146/2017 dated 04.04.2017 registered with Police Station Surajpur to be tried by Special Court at Surajpur (Chhattisgarh) - If the accused has been granted bail in connection with the principal FIR or criminal case arising therefrom in which the other FIRs/criminal cases will stand clubbed/merged in terms of this order the bail so granted must enure in his favour until the Court of competent jurisdiction cancels the same owing to supervening circumstances including breach of bail conditions. In case no bail has been granted in the principal FIR (case) the appellant may apply for the same before the jurisdictional court competent to try the principal crime. Petition disposed off.

Summary

ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The primary legal issues considered in this judgment include:

• Whether multiple First Information Reports (FIRs) filed in different states can be clubbed together for a single trial to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
• Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail in light of the clubbing of FIRs.
• The applicability of special state enactments and their impact on the clubbing of cases.
• The treatment of FIRs under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002, in relation to other offences.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Clubbing of FIRs

• Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Court referred to its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, allowing it to pass orders necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The Court also cited its previous decisions, such as in the case of Radhey Shyam vs. State of Haryana, where similar clubbing of cases was directed.
• Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court reasoned that clubbing FIRs state-wise would prevent multiplicity of proceedings, which is not in the larger public interest. This approach aligns with the principle of judicial economy and efficiency.
• Application of law to facts: The Court decided to club FIRs within each state, such as Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, and Chhattisgarh, under the respective special enactments applicable in those states. The FIRs in West Bengal and Rajasthan were to proceed independently due to specific circumstances, including ongoing trials or the singular nature of the case in those states.
• Treatment of competing arguments: The Court noted that the concerned states did not object to the proposed clubbing of FIRs, which facilitated the decision.
• Conclusions: FIRs within each state would be clubbed and treated as statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). The principal FIR in each state would serve as the basis for further proceedings, with subsequent FIRs being merged into it.

Bail Considerations

• Application of law to facts: The Court held that if the accused had been granted bail in connection with the principal FIR, such bail would continue unless canceled by the court due to new circumstances or breach of conditions. If no bail was granted, the accused could apply for it before the jurisdictional court.
• Conclusions: Bail conditions would be determined based on the principal FIR, ensuring consistency and fairness in the treatment of the accused.

Special State Enactments

• Relevant legal framework: The Court acknowledged the applicability of special state enactments such as the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999, the Madhya Pradesh Investor Protection Act, 2000, and the Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors Interest Act, 2005.
• Application of law to facts: The Court directed that trials under these special enactments be conducted by the respective special courts in each state, ensuring that the cases proceed in accordance with the specific legal frameworks.
• Conclusions: The special enactments would govern the proceedings, with the principal FIR serving as the focal point for trials.

Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002

• Relevant legal framework: The Court clarified that offences under the PMLA would proceed separately from the general offences and those under special state legislations.
• Conclusions: The PMLA cases would be handled independently by the designated investigating agency and court, ensuring adherence to the specific requirements of the PMLA.

SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

• Preserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: "Following the exposition of this Court in Amish Devgan vs. Union of India & Ors. (2021) 1 SCC 1, we deem it appropriate in exercise of power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, to direct clubbing of all the FIRs State-wise, which can proceed together for one trial as far as possible, as we are of the opinion that multiplicity of the proceedings will not be in the larger public interest."
• Core principles established: The judgment established the principle that clubbing FIRs within a state can streamline legal proceedings and prevent unnecessary multiplicity, provided there is no objection from the concerned states.
• Final determinations on each issue: The Court ordered the clubbing of FIRs state-wise, with the principal FIR in each state serving as the basis for further proceedings. Bail conditions would be determined based on the principal FIR, and special state enactments would govern the trials. PMLA offences would proceed separately.