Madhya Pradesh High Court
Narsingh Patidar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 July, 2025
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:15935
1 MCRC No. 21709 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 21709 of 2025
NARSINGH PATIDAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
.............................................................................................................................
Appearance:
Mr. Rajesh Yadav - Advocate for applicant.
Mr. Prasanna Prasad - Advocate for respondent.
.............................................................................................................................
Reserved on : 27/06/2025
Pronounced on : 01/07/2025
ORDER
Per: Justice Binod Kumar Dwivedi
This petition under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 has been filed assailing the impugned order dated 22.04.2025 in
SC (Lokayukt) No.02/2022 by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Mandsaur
whereby the learned Judge has rejected the application of the applicant for joint
trial of all the cases against the applicant/accused and had continued the trial
separately.
02. Brief facts of the case as having emerged during trial are that the
revenue authority upon investigation has found that the co-accused
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:15935
Bhanwarkunwar being Sarpanch and the present applicant Narsingh Patidar
being Up-Sarpanch have granted 79 Pattas of plots out of which 44 plots have
been given to outsiders not being residents of village-Ajijkhedi. It has been
further stated that 19 plots have been given to those persons, who were already
having houses in the names of their husband, father, father-in-law and others.
Later on, the illegal Pattas granted by the applicant and co-accused were
cancelled and the revision against the said cancellation order was also
dismissed. Thereafter, 47 separate FIRs were registered by the respondents.
03. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the FIRs in respect
of allotment of Pattas were made as per resolution dated 28.07.2007 and the
resolution No.5 dated 20.02.2009 by which total 79 Pattas were allotted to
different persons and the respondents have registered 47 separate FIRs with
respect to them whereas it is arising from the same meetings of the Gram
Panchayat and the entire investigation, statements, documents in all the FIRs
registered are identical except the name of beneficiaries. The FIRs and final
report in cases 7 cases out of 47 cases have been filed till date and every final
report contains about 1500 to 2000 pages and in every case there are total 5
accused persons whereas the contents, statements and documents are completely
identical only beneficiaries are different.
04. It has been further submitted that the applicant is also forced to
appear in 47 different cases and to face trial in 47 different cases whereas the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:15935
cause of action is same and this will further lead to wastage of the valuable time
of the learned trial Court as the evidence which is required to be recorded is
common in all cases, hence all the FIRs can be consolidated and clubbed with
the first FIR No. 311/2015 registered at P.S. Special Police Establishment,
Lokayukta Office Ujjain. It is further submitted that a just balance between the
fundamental rights of the citizens under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution
and the extensive power of the police to investigate a cognizable offence has to
be maintained. It is submitted that the sweeping power of investigation does not
warrant subjecting a citizen each time to fresh investigation by the police in
respect of the same incident, giving rise to one or more cognizable offences. It
would clearly be beyond the purview of Sections 154 and 156 Cr.P.C. and in
fact, the same would be a case of abuse of the statutory power of investigation
in a given case. Therefore, it is requested to issue directions to consolidate all
these cases in F.I.R. No.311/2015.
05. Learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned
order and submits that no illegality has been committed by the learned trial
Court in dismissing the application for joint trial filed on behalf of the applicant,
therefore, prays for dismissal of the petition.
06. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
07. Section 220 of Cr.P.C. reads as under:-
220. Trial for more than one offence.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:15935
(1) If, in one series of acts so connected together as to form
the same transaction, more offences than one are committed
by the same person, he may be charged with, and tried at one
trial for, every such offence.
(2) When a person charged with one or more offences of
criminal breach of trust or dishonest misappropriation of
property as provided in sub- section (2) of section 212 or in
sub- section (1) of section 219, is accused of committing, for
the purpose of facilitating or concealing the commission of
that offence or those offences, one or more offences of
falsification of accounts, he may be charged with, and tried at
one trial for, every such offence.
(3) If the acts alleged constitute an offence falling within two
or more separate definitions of any law in force for the time
being by which offences are defined or punished, the person
accused of them may be charged with, and tried at one trial
for, each of such offences.
(4) If several acts, of which one or more than one would by
itself or themselves constitute an offence, constitute when
combined a different offence, the person accused of them may
be charged with, and tried at one trial for the offence
constituted by such acts when combined, and for any offence
constituted by any one, or more, of such acts.
(5) Nothing contained in this section shall affect section 71 of
the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860 ).
08. From bare perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is apparent that it is
not mandatory that more than one case filed against the applicant/accused will
be tried jointly in each case. Undisputedly, in the present case 47 FIRs have
been registered for different offences though of similar nature. Pattas were
allotted to different persons and the applicant has admitted that beneficiaries are
different in each and every case. Allotment of each of the patta constituted
separate offence and beneficiary who is involved in the criminal conspiracy and
fraud are different in each case. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that all
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:15935
the FIRs belong to the same offence. By mere facts that the applicant is same,
joint trial cannot be ordered looking to the aforesaid fact that properties and
beneficiaries are different. This question came up before this Court in Writ
Petition No. 25383/2022 wherein vide order dated 01.07.2023 same view was
taken. When the aforesaid order was challenged before the Apex Court in SLP
(Crl.) No(s). 2235/2024 (Nar Singh Patidar vs. Madhya Pradesh Special
Police Establishment & Ors.), the Apex Court taking into consideration the
provisions as enshrined in Section 219 & 223 of the Cr.P.C. has observed as
under:-
"6. We have gone through the provisions of law as placed
before us as well as the judgments cited in their favour by the
learned respective counsels. The sum and substance of the
case herein is whether there has to be a joint trial or separate
trials. This, however, has to be decided first by the trial court
itself where the proceedings are pending. Theoretically yes, a
joint trial in such cases is permissible, but the decision in the
first instance has to be taken by the Trial Court concerned.
The High Court too has taken a view with which we are
presently not in disagreement as it is a possible view, but this
question has to be first decided by the Trial Court itself.
7. In view of the above and particularly in view of judgment
in the case State of Jharkhand vs. Lalu Prasad Yadav
(2017)8 SCC 1, we dispose of the appeal leaving it open to
the Trial Court to take a call on this and dispose of the matter
expeditiously, and to that extent and for the limited reasons
stated above the High Court's order is set aside.
In case charges have been framed and trial has begun, it
should proceed in letter and spirit of the provisions under
section 309 of Cr. P.C."
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:15935
09. In the light of aforesaid observation by the Apex Court, this petition
is disposed off with a direction to the trial Court that at the appropriate stage, it
will be decided by it whether joint trial, as prayed by the applicant is convenient
and permissible, in accordance with the law, if so the court may suo motu take
futher steps in this regard. Accordingly, the petition is disposed off.
CC as per rules.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE JUDGE
Soumya
