Amanat Ali vs The State Of Karnataka

2023 INSC 1060 Non-reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.432 OF 2022

Amanat Ali …. Petitioner

Versus

State of Karnataka and others …. Respondents

JUDGMENT

Aravind Kumar, J.

1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for the

following relief:

“Consolidate/Club all the FIRs (i) FIR No. 324/2017, 406/420/120 (B) IPC and 4/6(1)/6(2) M.P. Act, Dewas, M.P., (ii) FIR No. 479/2018, 420/34 IPC, Indore, M.P., (iii) FIR No. Signature Not Verified 283/2020, 420/34 IPC, Khargone M.P., (iv) FIR No. 002/2021, Digitally signed by SWETA BALODI 420 IPC, Gokul Road, Hubali, Karnataka, (v) FIR No. 090/2021, Date: 2023.12.11 17:30:48 IST Reason:

406/420/120(B) IPC, Dhadhara, Gumla, Jharkhand registered against the Petitioner in different states at various police stations to the Court of the competent jurisdiction at Guna, Madhya 2

Pradesh where proceedings are pending in the FIR No. 0266/2018, U/S420/407/418/406/409120B/467/468. Section 4/6(1)/6(2) MP investors Interests Act 2000, P.S. Guna Kotwali, District: Guna in the interest of justice.”

2. We have heard Mr. Chandra Prakash, learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Yashraj Singh Bundela, learned

counsel appearing for Respondent No.2 and Ms. Pragya Baghel,

learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.3.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that

petitioner being aged 60 years has been foisted with several cases in

the States of Madhya Pradesh, Karnataka and Jharkhand for similar

offences and he was never appointed as the Director of the company

– G. Life India Developers and Colonizers Limited. Contending

that the prosecution initiated is in relation to the fraud/scam

committed by the company and petitioner is in way concerned with

same. It is also contended, for the purposes of speedy and fair trial

and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings it would be in the best

interest of all that cases pending in various States be consolidated

and posted to the court of a competent jurisdiction at Guna, Madhya 3

Pradesh. Hence, relying upon the following judgments he prays that

this petition be allowed:

“1. SATINDER SINGH BHASIN V/S THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.” Writ Petition (criminal) No. 197 of 2021

2. Amish Devgan vs. Union of India & Ors” WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 160 OF 2020

3. ABHISHEK SINGH CHAUHAN V/S UNION OF INDIA & ORS.” in WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.40 of 2022”

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.2

and 3 would contend that complainant(s)/witnesses are different in

each of the cases and they cannot be penalized for having lodged

the prosecution by making them to travel all the way either from

Karnataka or from Jharkhand to the State of Madhya Pradesh and

each case having been registered by the jurisdictional police on the

basis of individual cause of action it would not be apt and

appropriate to transfer all the cases to one court as sought for by the

petitioner and hence, they have prayed for rejection of the petition.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of

the pleadings we notice that following cases are pending against the 4

petitioner in the States of Madhya Pradesh, Karnataka and

Jharkhand:

Sl. FIR Under Section Police District/ Status Status of Charge-

No. No. Station Station of Trial sheet Bail filed or not 1 324/ 406/420/120B IPC Bank Dewas, On Filed 2017 and 4/6(1)/6(2) M.P. Note M.P. Bail Act Press 2 266/ 406/409/416/417/42 Guna Guna Not Charges Filed 2020 0/ 467/468/120B IPC M.P. M.P. on framed and 4/6(1),6(2) M.P. Bail Act 3 479/ 420/34 IPC MIG Indore, Non Filed 2018 Colony M.P. on Bail 4 283/ 420/34 IPC Un Khargone Non Not Not 2020 M.P. on produced filed Bail 5 002/ 420 IPC Gokul Hubali, Non Not Not 2021 Road Karnataka on produced filed Bail 6 090/ 406/420/120B IPC Dhadhara Gumla Non Trial not Filed 2021 Jharkhand on started Bail

6. The cases noted at Serial Nos.5 and 6 have been registered by

the Gokul Road, Hubli, Karnataka Police and Dhadhara, Ghumla,

Jharkhand, Police Station, respectively. Whereas the cases at Serial

Nos.1 to 4 are registered in the State of Madhya Pradesh and that

too by different Police Stations. Suffice to note that first FIR came

to be registered by the Police Station Bank Note Press, Madhya 5

Pradesh and three other FIRs have been registered in the District of

Guna, Indore and Khargone respectively at Madhya Pradesh.

Learned standing counsel appearing for the State of Madhya

Pradesh has expressed no objection if these cases are consolidated

and listed before one court having jurisdiction. Hence, following

the principles laid down in Amish Devgan v. Union of India and

others (2021) 1 SCC 1 we deem it appropriate to exercise power

conferred under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to accede to

the relief claimed to the extent of consolidation of the FIRs

registered in the State of Madhya Pradesh for being tried together as

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 and State

also. It is clarified that all the cases pending in the State of Madhya

Pradesh shall be transferred to the District of Devas, Madhya

Pradesh where FIR No.324 of 2017 has been filed and registered

against the petitioner or in other words, FIR Nos.266 of 2018, 479

of 2018 and 283 of 2020 shall stand transferred to the District of

Devas where FIR No.324 of 2017 is pending. The jurisdictional

courts shall take immediate steps to transfer the proceedings for 6

being consolidated and adjudicated by one trial to be decided on its

own merits. The prayer for transfer of the cases pending in the

States of Karnataka and Jharkhand to the State of Madhya Pradesh

stands rejected

7. Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of.

………………………..J. (B.R. Gavai)

………………………J. (Aravind Kumar)

New Delhi, December 11, 2023