REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.1947-1956 OF 2017 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (Crl) Nos.1218-1227/2014)

Chirag M. Pathak & Ors. Etc.Etc.                     ....Appellant(s)           

VERSUS

Dollyben Kantilal & Ors.             ….Respondent(s)

With

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos.869-878 of 2014

J U D G M E N T

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1) Leave granted.

2) These appeals are filed by appellants against

the common judgment dated 17.10.2013 passed by

the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Special

Criminal Application Nos.1265, 1266, 1267, 1268,

1

1269, 2930, 2931, 2932, 2933 and 2934 of  2013

whereby  the  High  Court  allowed  the  applications

filed by the respondents herein under Section 482 of

Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter

referred to as “the Code”) and quashed the five First

Information  Report  (in  short  “the  FIR”)

Nos.50/2013,  51/2013,  52/2013,  53/2013  and

54/2013 dated 19th February, 2013.   

3) Facts  of  the case and the issues involved in

these  appeals  are  short.   They,  however,  need

mention hereinbelow to appreciate the controversy.

4) Six  FIRs  were  registered  in  different  Police

Stations in the State of Gujarat against five different

Co-Operative  Housing  Societies  for  commission  of

various offences alleged to have been committed by

the President, Office Bearers and other persons of

the  five  Societies  under  Sections  406,  409,  420,

465, 467, 468, 471,120-B and 477-A of the Indian

2

Penal Code, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”).

The details of these six FIRs are as under:  

Sr. No .

Date &  FIR No.

Name  & Regn.  of Society

Survey No.  & Village

Period & Place  of offence

Name  of accused

Name  of victims

1 CR 1-5/2 012 dated 21.5.2 012 registe red with Gandh i Nagar CID Crime PS

Balasinor Society  – Plot No.A/71 GH-11136

S. No.320, 320/1, 329, 332 Village  - Pipaliya

Since 1984  to till 21.5.12

Kantilal Ambalal Patel, Dollyben Kantilal Patel, Ashok Desaibhai Patel, Sachin Rajendra Patel, Haresh Shashikant Patel, Jashbhai Shanker-b hai Patel

Ranjitrai Joshi

2 C.R.I- 50/20 13 dated 19.2.2 013 registe red with Makar pura P.S. Vadod ara

Balasinor Society GH-11136

S.No.320, 320/1, 329,  332 Village-Pi paliya Area–  1, 14,  426, sq. mt.

20.7.11 to 28.9.11 at  60, Vimal Society, Makar-p ura

Kantilal Ambalal Patel, Dollyben Kantilal Patel, Haresh Shashikant Patel, Vikas Ramesh-m ore Chandu-bh ai, Jashbhai Shanker-b hai Patel

Kanchan-la l  Bhatt, Arvind Kanchan-la l  Bhatt, Vasant  R. Chavda, Indiraben Ratilal Adhiya, Manjula-be n  Arvind kumar Shah, Nainaben Suresh Kumar Parikh, Jasvant-bh ai  Kodarlal Parikh, Usnas

3

Navin Chandra Kacheriya Ravjibhai A.  Patel, Bipin Chandra  A. Patel, Parixit Ambalal Patel, Naresh kumar  C. Patel, Kanubhai A.  Vyas, Ratilal  A. Patel,  Sunil kumar Prem kumar Jethmal-an i,  Rekha S. Patel

3 C.R.I- 51/20 13  dt. 19.2.1 3 registe red with Makar pura P.S. Vadod ara

Valkesh-w ar  Society GH-11133

S.No.45 &  47 Village Kamla-p ura Area-49, 979  sq. mt.

15.7.11 to 29.9.11 at  60, Vimal Society, Makar-p ura

Kantilal Ambalal Patel, Dollyben Kantilal Patel, Sachin Rajendra Anuben, Chandu-b hai, Jashbhai Shanker-b hai Patel

Dhananj-a y Vallabh-b hai  Patel, Jayaben A.  Patel, Mayank N.  Patel, Nikhilhar- sukhray Bhatt, Dipa Koradiya, Jayvanti-b en Sevantilal Vaan Hansaben Ratilal Shah, Jayshree Suresh Chandra Shah, Amita Piyush-bh ai  Parikh,

4

Pragna-be n Manoj-bh ai  Mehta, Bachub-b hai  A. Patel, Haresh  B. Brahm-bh att, Mukesh, C  Patel, Kokila  A. Patel, Rajesh  M. Patel, Babu-bhai S.  Patel, Arvind-bh ai P.Amin, Prakash-b hai Ishwar-bh ai  Patel, Bipin-cha ndra Ambalal Patel

4 C.R.I- 52/20 13  dt. 19.2.1 3 registe red with Makar pura P.S. Vadod ara

Parla Society GH-11134

S.No.54 Village Kamla-p ura Area-69, 706  sq. mt.

13.7.11 to 29.9.11 at  60, Vimal Society, Makar-p ura

Kantilal Ambalal Patel, Dollyben Kantilal Patel, Jitendra Shashi-ka nt  Patel Bhanu-be n  Kantilal Patel Jashbhai Shankar- bhai Patel

Prem kumar Jagtram Jeth-mala ni, Hansaben V. Thakkar, Vidyaben N.  Patel, Champa-b en  S. Patel, Suresh-bh ai A. Vyas Suman-bh ai  A. Patel, Balkrush- na  M. Pandya, Narmada- ben  M.

5

Patel, Sarojben C  Patel, Arvind-bh ai  M. Shah

5 C.R.I- 53/20 13  dt. 19.2.1 3 registe red with Makar pura P.S. Vadod ara

Alkapuri Society GH-11135

S.No.46, 48 & 49 Village Kamla-p ura Area-94, 900  sq. mt.

11.7.11 to 29.9.11 at  60, Vimal Society, Makar-p ura

Kantilal Ambalal Patel, Dollyben Kantilal Patel, Ashok-bh ai Desaibhai Patel, Bhartiben Ashok-bh ai  Patel, Jashbhai Shanker-b hai  Patel, Chandu-b hai

Kokila Sirish Modi, Ketan Dinesh Bhansali, Jagdish J. Kapadia, Vinodini Kapadia, Gautam Kapadia, Anjana Kapadia, Bhariben Bhansali, Girish Doshi, Asish Shah, Suresh Kantilal Shah, Arvind-bh ai, Vallabh-b hai  Patel, Vallabh-b hai Tribhuvan -bhai Patel, Vinubhai B.  Patel, Kanchan- bhai Patel, Jashbhai Ravji-bhai Patel, Chandu-b hai  B. Patel, Rashmi-b en  S. Patel,

6

Chandra- kant  S. Patel, Kastur-bh ai Lallubhai Patel

6 C.R.I- 54/20 13  dt. 19.2.1 3 registe red with Makar pura P.S. Vadod ara

Kheta-wa di  Society GH-11486

S.No.50, 51, 52A, 52B Village Kamla-p ura Area-96, 519  sq. mt.

25.7.11 to 29.9.11 at  60, Vimal Society, Makar-p ura

Kantilal Ambalal Patel, Dollyben Kantilal Patel, Kishore  N Bhatt, Dilip Manibhai Patel, Jashbhai Shanker-b hai Patel

Rita  C Kapadia, Vana Kulin Ghatalia, Vaishali Ghatalia, Kundan Doshi, Jaimit Doshi, Upendra Ashabhai Patel, Bipinbhai Chotabhai Patel, Dahya-bh ai  B. Patel, Kiranbhai J.  Parikh, Arvind-bh ai Chotabhai Patel, Manubhai Chotabhai Patel, Ramesh-b hai Shana-bh ai, Harshad-b hai Mudji-bha i, Shakunt-l aben Jesan-bha i

7

5) The  accused  (respondent  Nos.1,  2  and  3

herein,  who  are  members  of  one  family),  felt

aggrieved  by  the  registration  of  above-mentioned

five FIRs (item 2 to 6) which had implicated them for

commission  of  several  offences,  filed  Criminal

Applications under Section 482 of the Code in the

High Court of Gujarat and sought quashing of the

above-mentioned five FIRs.  

6) The challenge was essentially founded on the

ground that  filing of  the  first  FIR(1Cr.  No.5/2012

dated 21.05.2012) appearing at S.No.1 above takes

care  of  remaining  five  FIRs  and,  therefore,  the

remaining  five  FIRs  are  wholly  uncalled  for  and

should not have been registered  inasmuch as the

five FIRs are nothing but repetition of the first FIR

and hence all the five FIRs deserve to be quashed.  

7) In other words, the contention of the accused

persons  before  the  High  Court  was  that  the

8

subsequent  registration  of  five  FIRs  after

registration of first one was nothing but repetition of

first FIR inasmuch as all the five FIRs are founded

on the same allegations, which are part of the first

FIR  and,  therefore,  accused  persons  cannot  be

subjected to suffer five more prosecution cases in

relation to the same offences on the strength of five

FIRs once they are made to suffer the prosecution in

relation to offences on the strength of first FIR.

8) It  was  urged  that  once  the  investigation  in

respect  of  first  FIR  is  over  and  charge-sheet

pursuant thereto is filed in the concerned Court, it

would take care of remaining five FIRs and it is for

this  reason  the  remaining  five  FIRs  are  wholly

uncalled for.

9) The State opposed the Criminal Applications. It

was, inter alia, contended that having regard to the

nature of allegations made in each FIR in relation to

9

the commission of the several offences, no case is

made  out  to  quash  any  FIR  out  of  five  and,

therefore,  all  the  six  FIRs  must  be  allowed to  be

investigated  independently  of  one  another.   After

completion of the investigation,  charge-sheets are

allowed  to  be  filed  in  each  case  against  all  the

accused persons involved in the scam in accordance

with law so that each case is brought to its logical

end  in  the  Court  of  law  against  all  the  accused

persons.

10) The High Court found merit in the contention

of the accused persons and, by impugned judgment,

allowed  their  Criminal  Applications  and  while

quashing  the  five  FIRs  passed  the  following

directions in the impugned order:

“In  the  light  of  the  above  discussion,  the petitions  succeed  and  are  accordingly allowed.   The  first  information  reports registered  vide  Makarpura  Police  Station 1-CR.No.50/2013,  51/2013,  52/2013,

10

53/2013 and 54/2013 dated  19th February, 2013 are hereby quashed and set aside.  As a consequence  thereof,  the  investigation carried  out  pursuant  to  the  second  first information reports, shall be treated as part of the investigation carried out in respect of the 1st first information report and the entire record  of  the  subsequent  first  information reports  shall  be  forwarded  to  the Investigating  Officer  of  the  1st first information  report,  who  shall  consider  the same and carry out investigation in respect of  the  detailed  allegations  made  therein. Rule is made absolute accordingly.”

11) The  appellants  herein  are  the  members  of

these  Societies.   They  claim to  be  the  victims  of

several  illegal  activities  alleged  to  have  been

committed  by  the  accused  persons  (respondents

herein)  in  the  affairs  of  the  Societies  and,

particularly, those committed in relation to sale of

the lands belonging to the Societies, siphoning off

the  funds  of  the  Societies,  falsification  of  the

accounts of the Societies etc.  

12) The appellants, felt aggrieved of the impugned

judgment,  which  resulted  in  quashing  of  5  FIRs,

11

have  filed  these  appeals  by  way  of  special  leave

before this Court.

13) Heard  Mr.  Huzefa  Ahmadi,  learned  senior

counsel  for  the  appellants  and  Mr.  Mohit

Choudhary, learned counsel for the respondents.

14) Having  heard  the  learned  counsel  for  the

parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we

are constrained to allow the appeals, set aside the

impugned  judgment  and  dismiss  the  Criminal

Applications  filed  by  the  accused  persons

(respondents herein) under Section 482 of the Code

out of which these appeals arise.

15) The  short  question  which  arises  for

consideration in these appeals is whether the High

Court  was  justified  in  quashing  the  five  FIRs

appearing at S.Nos. 2 to 6 extracted above.

16) We have perused all the six FIRs with a view to

find out as to whether the grievance urged by the

12

accused persons is made out on facts or not. Having

perused, we find ourselves unable to agree with the

reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the High

Court, which led to quashing of the five FIRs.  

17) We, however, do not consider it proper to give

our detailed reasoning as it may cause prejudice to

all  parties  concerned  because  the  investigation  is

not yet complete and the trial in the first FIR has

not  yet  started  except  to  observe  that  there

appeared no justifiable reason for the High Court to

quash  the  five  FIRs  by  taking  recourse  to  the

inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code.  

18) We find that the High Court had labored hard

when it devoted 46 pages in examining the factual

issues  involved  in  six  cases,  appreciated  the

allegations of FIRs like an Appellate Court to some

extent and then reached to a conclusion that all the

six  FIRs  were  based  on  identical  facts  and  the

13

allegations contained therein overlap and, therefore,

the  first  FIR  alone  will  survive  for  investigation

whereas remaining five FIRs would not survive and

merge in the first FIR.  

19) We do not agree with the manner, reasoning

and the conclusion arrived at by the High Court in

the impugned judgment.

20) We find that all the five Co-Operative Societies

against  whom  the  afore-mentioned  FIRs  were

registered are different, their members are different,

their area of operation is different, the lands which

were sold/transferred are also situated in different

areas,  the  lands  were  also  sold/transferred  to

different  parties  on  different  dates  for  different

sums,  the  accounting  books  are  different,  the

persons involved in the falsification of the accounts

of every Society are different etc. etc.  

14

21) In short,  having regard to the totality  of  the

factual  allegations  made  for  constituting  the

commission of several offences in relation to every

Co-Operative Society, it is not possible to hold that

all the FIRs are overlapping on one another and that

first FIR alone will be sufficient to take care of the

remaining five FIRs.   

22) There may be some overlapping allegations in

the FIRs but that is due to myriad reasons and one

reason could be that all the Co-operative Societies

were  engaged  in  the  same  business  of

sale/purchase  of  housing  and  the  plots  of  land

which  were  sold  to  different  persons  in  different

areas  by  same  accused  persons  due  to  their

involvement  in  the  affairs  of  all  Co-Operative

Societies.  However,  these  facts  were  not  by

themselves sufficient to quash the five FIRs at the

stage of investigation itself.

15

23) In  our  view,  such  issues  and  many  more,

namely,  the  nature  and  manner  of  conspiracy,

whether it was confined to each Society or there was

one or larger conspiracy, how and in what manner it

was accomplished, who were parties to it, who were

those persons who secured financial benefits, what

was the modus operandi for mis-appropriation of the

funds  of  each  Society  and  how  the  funds  were

siphoned off  from each Society etc.,  need detailed

investigation  with  respect  to  each  Cooperative

Society.   Once  the  investigation  is  complete  in

relation to each Society, the same would form part

of the separate charge-sheet for being proved with

the  aid  of  evidence  in  a  competent  Court  against

each Society and persons involved in the scam. It is

for the Court to examine the factual issues arising

in  every  case  by  appreciating  the  evidence  once

16

adduced  in  support  thereof  and  pass  appropriate

orders in accordance with law.  

24) The High Court, in exercise of its powers under

Section  482  of  the  Code,  cannot  undertake  a

detailed examination of the facts contained in the

FIRs by acting as an Appellate Court and draws its

own conclusion.  It is more so when investigation in

other Societies is not yet complete.

25) In our considered opinion, it is only when on

reading the FIR, a sheer absurdity in the allegations

is noticed and when no prima facie cognizable case

is made out on its mere reading due to absurdity in

the  allegations  or  when facts  disclose  prima facie

cognizable  case  and  also  disclose  remarkable

identity between the two FIRs as if the first FIR is

filed second time with no change in allegations then

the  Court  may,  in  appropriate  case,  consider  it

17

proper  to quash the second FIR.  Such is  not  the

case here.   

26) Indeed, in our view, few distinguishing factual

allegations mentioned above are enough to repel the

challenge  made  by  the  accused  persons  to  the

impugned  FIRs  and  the  same  should  have  been

made basis to dismiss the Criminal Applications of

the accused persons.

27) We may, at this stage, apposite to mention a

Three Judge Bench decision of this Court in  State

of West Bengal & Ors. vs. Swapan Kumar Guha &

Ors. (AIR  1982  SC  949)  wherein  this  Court

examined  somewhat  a  similar  question  in  the

context of the powers of the Court.

28) The  learned Chief  Justice,  Y.V Chandrachud

and  Justice  A.N.  Sen,  speaking  for  the  Bench in

their concurring opinion held as under:

“Whether  an  offence  has  been  disclosed  or not must necessarily depend on the facts and

18

circumstances of each particular case.  If on a consideration of the relevant materials, the Court is satisfied that an offence is disclosed, the Court will normally not interfere with the investigation  into  the  offence  and  will generally  allow  the  investigation  in  the offence  to  be  completed  for  collecting materials for proving the offence.

The  condition  precedent  to  the commencement of investigation under S.157 of the Code is that the F.I.R. must disclose, prima  facie,  that  a  cognizable  offence  has been committed.  It is wrong to suppose that the police  have an unfettered discretion to commence investigation under S.157 of the Code.  Their right of inquiry is conditioned by  the  existence  of  reason  to  suspect  the commission of a cognizable offence and they cannot, reasonably, have reason so to suspect unless the F.I.R.,  prima facie,  discloses the commission  of  such  offence.   If  that condition is satisfied, the investigation must go on.  The Court has then no power to stop the investigation,  for  to  do so  would  be  to trench upon the lawful power of the police to investigate into cognizable offences.”   

29) We apply the aforesaid principle which, in our

opinion, applies to the facts of the case on hand and

accordingly decline to quash the impugned FIRs.

30) Learned counsel for the respondents (accused)

however, vehemently tried to support the impugned

judgment  and  took  us  through the  entire  factual

19

allegations of  all  six FIRs.  It  was his submission

that on perusal of  the impugned FIRs, there does

exist  overlapping  of  the  offences  in  the  FIRs  on

identical allegations with no change in any of the six

FIRs except repetition of the words and hence the

High Court was right in quashing the five FIRs.

31)  We  are  afraid  to  accept  this  submission  of

learned  counsel  for  the  respondents  (accused).

Having  noticed  few  significant  distinguishing

features  in  six  FIRs  mentioned  above,  the

submission has no merit.  

32) In  view  of  foregoing  discussion,  we  cannot

concur  with  the  reasoning  and  the  conclusion

arrived  at  by  the  High  Court  in  the  impugned

judgment.   The  appeals  thus  succeed  and  are

allowed.  The impugned judgment is set aside.  

33) It is held that all the six FIRs filed against the

respondents (accused persons) are legal and proper

20

and each have to be given effect for making proper

and  full  investigation  in  relation  to  the  offences

alleged in each FIR.  The Investigating Officer would

now speed up the  investigation in  relation to  the

affairs  of  each  Co-operative  Society  and  on  its

completion  file  charge-sheet  in  each  case  in

accordance with law in a competent Court.

34) Needless to say that when all the six cases are

filed  in  the  concerned  Courts,  they  would  be

clubbed together and tried by one competent Court

in accordance with law.  

35) The  parties  are  at  liberty,  at  an  appropriate

stage, to move to the High Court with a prayer to

club  and  then  transfer  all  the  six  cases  to  one

competent Court. The High Court would accordingly

pass appropriate orders of clubbing and transferring

all the six cases to one Court as it may deem fit and

21

proper to enable the said Court to dispose of all the

six cases in accordance with law.

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos.869-878 of 2014

In  view  of  the  above  judgment  rendered  in

appeals arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)Nos.1218-1227 of

2014, these special leave petitions are disposed of.

               ………...................................J.  [R.K. AGRAWAL]

                                                           …...……..................................J.

       [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]       New Delhi; November 15, 2017  

22