Madhya Pradesh High Court
Prahalad Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 January, 2025
Author: Vishal Dhagat
Bench: Vishal Dhagat
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:5047
1 WP-3682-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT
ON THE 27 th OF JANUARY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 3682 of 2023
PRAHALAD SHARMA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Balraj Pandey - Advocate for petitioners.
Shri Hitendra Singh - Govt. Advocate for respondent/State.
ORDER
Petitioners have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India making a prayer to issue writ of mandamus in nature of directions to
respondents to consolidate and try all offences registered against petitioners at one
place.
2. Counsel appearing for petitioners submitted that different complaints
have been registered against petitioners and there is likelihood that fresh
complaint may also be registered against them. Respondents be directed not to
register a new crime on said complaints but to include the complainant as a
witness in present crime as has been directed by Hon'ble Apex Court in number of
judgments. Counsel for petitioners relied upon the judgment passed by Apex
Court in case of Tarak Dash Mukharjee and others V. State of Uttar Pradesh and
others; reported in 2022 Live Law (SC) 731. Apex Court held that if on basis of
same set of facts and allegations different FIRs are registered, the accused will be
entangled in multiple criminal proceedings for same alleged offence and same will
amount to abuse of process of law. Successive FIR registered on same facts and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:5047
2 WP-3682-2023
circumstances was quashed. It is submitted that similar order be passed and
directions be issued not to register successive FIR and subsequent complainant be
called as witness in first FIR registered against the petitioners.
3. Government Advocate appearing for State submitted that different cause
of action arose from actions of petitioners, therefore, no error has been committed
in registering separate FIR against the petitioners. No interference is called for and
petition be dismissed.
4. Heard the counsel for the parties.
5. Petitioners have failed to file FIR before this Court. However on going
through the bail orders which are placed on record, it is found that following
offences are registered against the petitioners as under:-
S.No. FIR No. U/s Police Station Accused
420, 409 and 34 Karanwas,
1. 118/2021 Prahlad Sharma
of IPC District Rajgarh
420, 409 and 34 Kohefiza,
2. 630/2021 Prahlad Sharma
of IPC Bhopal
420, 409 and 34 Prahlad Sharma and
3. 418/2021 Kotwali, Dhar
of IPC Shubham Sharma
420 and 34 of Prahlad Sharma and
4. 97/2022 Rajgarh
IPC Shubham Sharma
420, 409 and 34
5. 444/2022 Kohefiza Prahlad Sharma
of IPC
420, 409 and 34
6. 13/2023 Kohefiza Prahlad Sharma
of IPC
420, 409 and 34
7. 178/2021 Crime Branch
of IPC
420, 409 and 34
8. 632/2021 Kohefiza Prahlad Sharma
of IPC
420, 409 and 34
9. 311/2021 Vidisha
of IPC
420, 406, 409
10. 607/221 Kohefiza
and 34 of IPC
420, 409 and 34
11. 1335/2021 Nishatpura Prahlad Sharma
of IPC
6. The Apex Court in para 14 of the judgment passed in case of State of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:5047
3 WP-3682-2023
Rajasthan v. Bhagwan Das Agrawal and others; (2013) 16 SCC 574 held as
under:-
"14. Section 186, Cr.P.C., which deals with the power of the High
Court to decide, in case of doubt, the district where inquiry or trial shall
take place, is extracted hereinbelow:
"186. High Court to decide, in case of doubt, district where
inquiry or trial shall take place.- Where two or more Courts
have taken cognizance of the same offence and a question
arises as to which of them ought to inquire into or try that
offence, the question shall be decided -
(a) if the Courts are subordinate to the same High Court, by
that High Court;
(b) if the Courts are not subordinate to the same High
Court, by the High Court within the local limits of whose
appellate criminal jurisdiction the proceedings were first
commenced,
and thereupon all other proceedings in respect of that
offence shall be discontinued."
From bare reading of the aforesaid provision it is manifest
that the main object and intention of the Legislature in
enacting the provision is to prevent the accused persons
from being unnecessarily harassed for the same offences
alleged to have been committed within the territorial
jurisdiction of more than one courts. In order to avoid
unnecessary harassment of the accused to appear and face
trial in more than one courts, necessary direction is to be
issued to discontinue the subsequent proceedings in other
courts. The provision is based on the principle of
convenience and expediency. However, the sine qua non for
the application of this provision is that the cases instituted in
different courts are in respect of the same offence arising out
of the same occurrence and that the same transaction and
that the parties are the same. In other words, the persons
implicated as an accused in different cases must be the
same. If these conditions are satisfied then subsequent
proceeding has to be discontinued."
7. Petitioners failed to file copy of F.I.R. or final report submitted under
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:5047
4 WP-3682-2023
Section 173 of Cr.P.C. On going through the facts which is mentioned in the said
bail orders, it is found that petitioners have entered into transactions with different
persons separately and had received money from them with promise to give
returns of the investment. Though, investment is made for doing fish cultivation
but is made by different persons in different place and in different dates with
different promise of returns with different amount invested and different promise
of returns, therefore, cause of action is different and no orders can be given for
clubbing of all the FIRs together.
8. In view of aforesaid, writ petition is dismissed.
(VISHAL DHAGAT)
JUDGE
sp/-
