Patna High Court
Alok Kumar vs The State Of Bihar Through Its ... on 7 February, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1523 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-287 Year-2020 Thana- PATLIPUTRA District- Patna
======================================================
Alok Kumar, S/O Padum Singh, R/O A51, Alok Bhawan, Yogipur, Chitragupt
Nagar, Ps- Patrakarnagar, Po- Lohianagar, Kankarbagh, 800020
... ... Petitioner/S
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar Through Its Secretary, Department Of Urban
Development Government Of Bihar Vikas Bhawan, Bailey Road Patna,
Bihar
2. The Union Of India Through The Assistant Director, Directorate Of
Enforcement Govt. Of India 1st Floor Chandpura Palace, Bank Road West
Gandhi Maidan, Patna, Bihar
3. Director General Of Police, Bihar, Patna Bihar Bihar
4. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, Bihar Bihar
5. Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Bihar, Patna, Bihar Bihar
6. Adg, Economic Offence Unit, Patna Bihar Bihar
7. Manju Dayal W/O Late Muneshwar Dayal R/O Ashok Kumar Sinha, Shanti
Bhawa, Chakbinda, Ps-Gardanibagh, Patna
8. Satish Kumar S/O Late Raghunandan Ram R/O Power Enclave, Flat No.
302, Professor Colony, Lal Babu Market, North Shastri Nagar, Ps- Shastri
Nagar, Lbs Nagar, Patna
9. Satyendra Kumar S/O Late Brijnandan Prasad R/O Flat No. 202, Power
Enclave, West Patel Nagar, Near Lal Babu Market, Lbs Nagar, Ps-Shastri
Nagar, Patna
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Lalit Kishore, Sr. Advo
Mr.Ajay Kumar Prasad
Mr.Deepak Kumar, Advocate
Mr.Kamal Kishor Kumar, Advocate
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1523 of 2023 dt.07-02-2025
2/26
Mr.Ayush Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Dr.K.N.Singh (A.S.G.)
Mr.Manoj Kr. Singh, Advocate
Mr.Ankit Kr. Singh, Advocate
Mr.Kumar Rakesh Chandra, Advocate
For the EOU : Mr.Vishwanath Prasad Sinha, Sr. Advocate
Ms.Soni Shrivastava, Advocate
For the RERA : Mr.Jainandra Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 07-02-2025
1. The petitioner has invoked the constitutional writ
jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India with a prayer to quash multiple FIRs
instituted against him on the ground that the said FIRs of
complaints are baseless and filed only to harass the petitioner,
even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their
entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence under
Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC.
2. It is admitted at the outset by the petitioner that at
best an offence under Section 406 of the IPC might be registered
on the basis of the said FIRs/complaints case. The complaints
mostly alleged that the petitioner and his company
misappropriated money advanced by the intending purchaser of
flats/apartments promised to be constructed by the petitioner's
company. As per writ petition as many as 61 FIRs were filed in
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1523 of 2023 dt.07-02-2025
different police stations.
3. At the time of hearing, it is submitted by the
learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the petitioner that as many
as 70 FIRs were filed against the petitioner.
4. It is necessary, at the outset, to state certain facts
involved in the case which led the petitioner to file the instant
writ petition.
5. The petitioner is Managing Director of Agrani
Homes, a company incorporated under the Companies Act. The
said company is engaged in real estate development business. It
constructs apartment, commercial places and markets and sale
them to public at large.
6. It is further stated that Indian Overseas Bank
Association with the vision of construction of a residential block
under the name and style of IOB Nagar in Patna, Bihar and
Varanasi in the State of Uttar Pradesh, collaborated with the
petitioner's company. The residential blocks in Patna was
proposed to be constructed at Danapur. The land of the project
was clear in a phased manner by way of direct purchase or
under development with the agreement of the respective land-
lords. The development of the project was carried out in a
phased manner in blocks. Blocks G to J was developed under
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1523 of 2023 dt.07-02-2025
one plan as a part of the IOB Township Project whereas K and L
are part of the plan. From the other blocks to be constructed
such as Blocks C2, PG-1 and PG-2. Blocks G to J of IOB Nagar
was constructed over 18 Kathas of land under development
agreement with the land-lord.
7. At this juncture, the petitioner received a notice
from RERA and took step for registration of the project under
Section 3 on 30th of April, 2018. The completion date for the
said project was mentioned on 31st of December, 2019.
However, the RERA did not register the said project for a
further period of 8 months and it was only on 17 th of December,
2018 that the said project came to be registered. Due to non-
registration of the project, no construction/development work
could be undertaken by the company/Agrani Homes over the
said project. Accordingly, the company applied for extension of
the date of completion of the project on 13th of March, 2020 and
the completion date was fixed on 31 st of March, 2021. Again the
petitioner's company made an application with RERA to extend
the completion date on 5th of August, 2020 but it was denied. In
the meantime, some intending purchasers/allottees of flats in
blocks G, H, I, K and L filed complaints before RERA which
was registered as Complaint Case No. CC/306/2019 along with
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1523 of 2023 dt.07-02-2025
other analogous cases. During the pendency of those cases, the
company assured RERA that the proceeds of the sale of flats
would be utilised towards amount who wish to take the refund
of the amount paid by them. During the pendency of the said
complaint cases, RERA directed the intending buyers of the
Patliputra Land i.e., Ruban Hospital to be appeared in the
complaint cases. In the year 2020, another Complaint Case No.
548 (C) of 2020 dated 28h of July, 2020 under Sections 406 and
420 of the IPC and 138 of the N.I. Act was filed against the
petitioner before the learned Judicial Magistrate 1 st Class at
Danapur.
8. Subsequent to the said complaint, series of other
complaints were filed against the petitioner. Simultaneously,
order were passed by RERA directing the petitioner's company
to deposit huge amount of money to different intending
purchasers including Ruban Hospital. It is stated by the
petitioner that even prior to the intervention of the RERA, the
petitioner was in the process of refunding the principal amount
along with interest to the allottees of the various flats who had
demanded refund from the petitioner. In the said process, the
Agrani Homes had already made payments of an amount of Rs.
2 Crore and after intervention of RERA, the petitioner has paid
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1523 of 2023 dt.07-02-2025
approximately a sum of Rs. 38 Crores which, according to the
petitioner shows the bona fide that the petitioner had no
intention to misappropriate or commit cheating of the booking
money of the intending purchasers with dishonest and
fraudulent intention. However, the petitioner suffered series of
criminal cases in the year 2021, 2022 and 2023.
9. The petitioner had filed a criminal writ petition
bearing WP (Crl.) No. 261 of 2023 before the Hon'ble Supreme
Court for clubbing and transferring the FIR (cases) which are
filed at various police stations of Patna, Gaya in the State of
Bihar and Varanasi in the State of Uttar Pradesh.
10. Hon'ble Supreme Court vide an order dated 21st of
July, 2023 passed an order rejecting the application filed by the
petitioner under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
However, given liberty to the petitioner to move before the High
Court for appropriate relief for clubbing of the cases before one
Court.
11. By filing the instant writ petition, the petitioner
has prayed for quashing of all the FIRs as contents of the
complaints attached with all individual FIRs, disclose only a
civil dispute relating to non-performance of agreement for sale.
12. It is submitted by Mr. Lalit Kishore, the learned
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1523 of 2023 dt.07-02-2025
Senior Counsel on behalf of the petitioner that the contents of
all the FIRs filed against the petitioner are verbatim similar. The
multiple FIRs/complaints are designed in a way to criminalize
the civil dispute between the petitioner and the home
buyers/complainants. It is a fact that the petitioner is involved in
real estate business, agreements were made with the intending
purchasers that the petitioner would construct residential
flat/apartments/hospital/commercial place/markets etc., and
collect a booking money from the intending purchasers.
However, the petitioner never had any intention to
misappropriate or commit cheating in respect of the said money
collected by him. Initially, petitioner did not obtain permission
from RERA for construction. Subsequently, considerable
numbers of flats were constructed and those were handed over
to the intending purchasers. The petitioner wants to settle the
dispute with the intending purchasers either by delivery of flats
or by payment of money with interest. As he is in custody, it is
not possible for him to negotiate with the intending purchasers.
Therefore, the subsequent act and conduct of the petitioner
clearly shows that he had no intention to misappropriate any
money or commit cheating by inducing the intending purchaser
to part with their property with dishonest, fraudulent or
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1523 of 2023 dt.07-02-2025
deceptive inducement.
13. In support of his contention, the learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioner refers to the decision of the Apex
Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr., reported in
(2012) 10 SCC 303.
14. It is also contended by the learned Senior Counsel
on behalf of the petitioner that there is absolutely no ingredient
of offence under Sections 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC against
the petitioner. Since the FIRs did not attribute to any criminal
liability of the petitioner, all the FIRs are liable to be quashed
relying on the decision in the case of State of Haryana v. Ch.
Bhajan Lal & Ors. reported in AIR 1992 SC 604.
15. An alternative argument has been made by the
learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the petitioner, stating, inter
alia, that the allegations made in various FIRs are parts/series of
one transaction and therefore it is necessary to quash all the FIR
except the first one and club them together in single FIR. On the
self-same allegation, there cannot be more than one FIR against
the petitioner.
16. On this score, learned Senior Counsel refers to the
decision in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala & Ors., reported in
(2001) 6 SCC 181, Paragraph Nos. 20 and 27 of the said
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1523 of 2023 dt.07-02-2025
decision is relevant and quoted below:-
20. From the above discussion it
follows that under the scheme of the
provisions of Sections 154, 155, 156, 157,
162, 169, 170 and 173 CrPC only the earliest
or the first information in regard to the
commission of a cognizable offence satisfies
the requirements of Section 154 CrPC. Thus
there can be no second FIR and consequently
there can be no fresh investigation on receipt
of every subsequent information in respect of
the same cognizable offence or the same
occurrence or incident giving rise to one or
more cognizable offences. On receipt of
information about a cognizable offence or an
incident giving rise to a cognizable offence
or offences and on entering the FIR in the
station house diary, the officer in charge of a
police station has to investigate not merely
the cognizable offence reported in the FIR
but also other connected offences found to
have been committed in the course of the
same transaction or the same occurrence and
file one or more reports as provided in
Section 173 CrPC.
27. A just balance between the
fundamental rights of the citizens under
Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution and the
expansive power of the police to investigate a
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1523 of 2023 dt.07-02-2025
cognizable offence has to be struck by the
court. There cannot be any controversy that
sub-section (8) of Section 173 CrPC
empowers the police to make further
investigation, obtain further evidence (both
oral and documentary) and forward a further
report or reports to the Magistrate. In
Narang case [(1979) 2 SCC 322 : 1979 SCC
(Cri) 479] it was, however, observed that it
would be appropriate to conduct further
investigation with the permission of the
court. However, 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,
consequent upon filing of successive FIRs
whether before or after filing the final report
under Section 173(2) CrPC. It would clearly
be beyond the purview of Sections 154 and
156 CrPC, nay, a case of abuse of the
statutory power of investigation in a given
case. In our view a case of fresh investigation
based on the second or successive FIRs, not
being a counter-case, filed in connection with
the same or connected cognizable offence
alleged to have been committed in the course
of the same transaction and in respect of
which pursuant to the first FIR either
investigation is under way or final report
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1523 of 2023 dt.07-02-2025
under Section 173(2) has been forwarded to
the Magistrate, may be a fit case for exercise
of power under Section 482 CrPC or under
Articles 226/227 of the Constitution."
17. The same principle is laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Arnab Ranjan Goswami v. Union of India &
Ors., reported in (2020) 14 SCC 51.
18. On the same point, the learned Senior Counsel on
behalf of the petitioner refers to the following decisions of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court :- BabuBhai v. State of Gujrat & Ors.,
reported in 2010 (12) SCC 254 and Amish Devgan v. Union of
India & Ors., reported in (2021) 3 SCC 306.
19. On 4th of November, 2023, Respondent No. 7,
Deputy Superintendent of Police, Economic Offence Unit, Bihar
has filed a counter affidavit denying all allegations made out by
the petitioner in the instant writ petition. The contesting
respondent refers to an order dated 25th of September, 2023
passed by this Court in the instant case where the Court has
quoted the submission made by the learned Senior Counsel for
the petitioner to the effect that he is not pressing for quashing of
the FIRs at present. However, the learned counsel submits that
he is pressing the prayer for clubbing all the cases before the
agency. It is submitted by Respondent No. 7 in its counter
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1523 of 2023 dt.07-02-2025
affidavit that in Cr. WJC No. 1150 of 2021, this Court passed an
order on 2nd of August, 2023 with respect to Agrani Group of
Companies/builder and its investors in order to protect the
interest of the intending purchaser of flats in Paragraph No. 34
directing the Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna to take a
view on the complaints and on the issue of transferring all the
FIRs to the Economic Offence Unit Police Station and
Economic Offence Unit was directed to take charge of all the
investigation and to apply its best resources and expertise.
20. Cr. WJC No. 98 of 2023 filed by one Shalini
Thakur and Ors. v. The Union of India and Ors., this Court
passed certain directions on 10th of October, 2023 and on the
basis of the above-mentioned directions, the Economic Offence
Unit, Bihar, Patna has received internal orders of Director
General of Police dated 17th of October, 2023 for taking
appropriate action in the matter against the petitioner. Upon
receipt of such direction, the S.P., Economic Office Unit, Bihar,
Patna, directed all S.Ps in all police districts in the State of Bihar
to submit report with respect to the criminal cases instituted
against Agrani Group of Companies. On the basis of such
requisition, the S.S.P., Gaya informed that Rampur P.S. Case
No. 139 of 2022 is pending for investigation against the
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1523 of 2023 dt.07-02-2025
petitioner within the jurisdiction of Gaya District and as many
as 44 criminal cases are pending within the jurisdiction of Patna
Police District. The investigation of those cases were taken up
by the Economic Offence Unit.
21. The Assistant Director, ED, Zonal Office at Patna
filed a counter affidavit on 5th of January, 2024, stating, inter
alia that investigation of scheduled offences under Sections 406,
420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC suggested that M/s Agrani
Homes Real Marketing Pvt. Ltd. had illegally diverted the
deposits/investment made by the home buyers and purchased
property in his personal name at Patliputra Colony, Patna and
thereby diverted money obtained by the petitioner as proceeds
of crime. Based on the material and information available with
the respondent department, searches were carried out under
Section 17 of the PMLA and the premises of the petitioner and
his company, resulted in recovery of physical documents and
misappropriation of huge amount of money for which the bank
accounts of the petitioner were frozen.
22. The S.S.P., attached to the office / RERA, Bihar,
Patna has filed another counter affidavit on 29th f March, 2024,
stating, inter alia, that the intending home buyers being
aggrieved person filed complaint under Section 31 of the RERA
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1523 of 2023 dt.07-02-2025
Act. More than 1500 complaints have been filed against the
petitioner, orders were passed by the authority and when the
petitioner failed to comply with the order of the authority under
Section 40 (1) & (2) of the RERA Act read with Rule 25 of the
RERA Rules, 2017, the matters were sent to the District
Magistrate for recovery of the amount under the provision of
Bihar & Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act.
23. It is contended on behalf of the Respondent No. 5
that the petitioner's company collected hundreds of crores of
rupees from the allottees/complainants on promise of giving
flats/plot since 2010 to 2019, but has miserably failed in every
aspect.
24. The initiation of 28 suo-motu cases by the
authorities, the respondent company had applied for 34
registration of their projects out of which only 11 projects have
been approved by the authority and 24 projects have been
withdrawn/rejected but, in spite of the said approval of the 11
projects, the petitioner's company failed to complete the same.
The petitioner has admitted that they have taken money from the
intending purchasers for around 50 projects and from the
records of the authority and the cases filed by the authority it
also appears that the petitioner in the name of Agrani have taken
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1523 of 2023 dt.07-02-2025
money for around 50 projects. From the application for
registration of the petitioner's company, the company himself
admit that the total cost of the said projects comes to Rs. 71,209
Lakhs. After the commencement of the RERA Act, the authority
has been flooded with approximately 1500 complaints cases
wherein 90 per cent of the allottees/complaints are demanding
their paid amount with interest. Thus, there was huge
defalcation of money for which the petitioner is not entitled to
get any relief.
25. The issue involved in the instant writ petition was
elaborately discussed by this Court while disposing of I.A. No.
2 of 2023 and I.A. No. 3 of 2023 filed in the instant writ
petition. Observation of this Court in Paragraph No. 4 onwards,
i.e., 4 to 22 of the order dated 22 nd of April, 2024 is relevant and
quoted below:
"4. In order to appreciate the above-
mentioned applications and submissions made by the
learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner, it is necessary
to narrate the following facts: -
The petitioner has filed the above-
numbered writ petition praying for quashing of
multiple F.I.R.s filed against him on the ground that if
the submissions made in the F.I.R., instituted against
the petitioner, are taken at their face value and
accepted in their entirety, they do not prima facie
constitute any offence under Sections 420/ 467 / 468 /
471 of the Indian Penal Code.
It is, however, admitted on behalf of the
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1523 of 2023 dt.07-02-2025
petitioner that allegations made out by the
Informants in several complaints made, constitute an
offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code
only.
It is stated by the petitioner that he is the
Managing Director of Agrani Homes Private Limited
and Agrani Homes Real Marketing Private Limited.
They undertook various development projects in the
field of infrastructure and Housing development in
the Districts of Patna and Gaya. The petitioner's
companies were engaged in construction of
residential flats in different localities, towns and
cities in the Districts of Patna and Gaya and
declared that they would sell out the said flats to the
intending purchasers at a price of Rs. 15,00,000/-.
Advertisements made by the above-named companies
of the petitioner attracted thousands of people and
the above-named companies accepted consideration
money from the intending purchasers and executed
agreements for sale of residential units with each of
the intending purchasers. It is alleged by the de facto
complainants that in spite of acceptance of
consideration money, the petitioner failed to deliver
residential units to the complainants and
misappropriated the consideration money which the
intending purchasers / complainants paid to him and
committed cheating. In some of such cases, there are
allegations of forgery of the agreements executed by
and between the intending purchasers and the
petitioner for the purpose of cheating and using such
forged documents as genuine in spite of petitioner's
specific knowledge that such documents were forged.
It is submitted by the petitioner by way of
amendment of the writ petition that as many as 69
numbers of cases have been registered against the
petitioner and the same is pending in different
Courts.
5. The learned Sr. Counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner has
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1523 of 2023 dt.07-02-2025
also filed application for clubbing together all 69
cases and commence trial as a single case against
him. However, the learned Sr. Counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner candidly submits that he is
not going to press the said application for clubbing
all the cases together at this stage. The applications
for interim as well as regular bail of the petitioner
are moved by the learned Sr. Counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner.
6. It is submitted by the learned Sr. Counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner that when a
person is implicated in a criminal case for the
offence of criminal breach of trust, he cannot be, at
the same time, implicated in an offence punishable
under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code for
cheating.
7. According to the learned Sr. Counsel on
behalf of the petitioner, mere breach of promise,
agreement or contract, does not, ipso facto,
constitute offence of criminal breach of trust under
Section 405 of the I.P.C. without there being clear
case of inducement. The difference between criminal
breach of trust and cheating would depend upon the
fraudulent inducement and mens rea. To support the
charge of criminal breach of trust and cheating,
existence of fraudulent or dishonest intention right at
the beginning of transaction with mens rea must be
shown. Breach of contractual obligations which are
accompanied by fraudulent, dishonest or deceptive
inducements, resulting in involuntary and inefficient
transfer stands criminalized under Section 415 of the
Indian Penal Code.
8. It is submitted by the learned Sr. Counsel
on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner had no
such fraudulent, dishonest or deceptive intention to
induce the intending purchasers to pay consideration
price for the flats to be constructed from the very
beginning. Practically, the petitioner's company
constructed approximately 1150 flats and duly
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1523 of 2023 dt.07-02-2025
handed over the possession of 850 flats to the
allottees. Unfortunately, the project could not be
completed for various reasons as Real Estate
Regulatory Authority (RERA), Bihar did not grant
approval for the projects within the statutory period
of 30 days as per Section 3 of the Bihar RERA Act
and Rules and had kept the matter pending for years
together and finally rejected the petitioner's prayer
for approval.
9. It is also submitted on behalf of the
petitioner that his company has already returned
consideration price, amounting to 38 crores to 651
allottees. In all, the petitioner returned 98 crores to
the intending purchasers to whom the petitioner
failed to deliver the possession of residential unit. He
also completed 65 to 70 per cent of the construction
work at the sites which were previously approved by
RERA, Bihar. The petitioner has detailed out the
manners of payment in page 10 to 13 of the rejoinder
affidavit to the reply in counter affidavit filed by the
Respondent No. 2 and Respondent No. 6.
10. It is also submitted by learned Sr.
Counsel on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner
is in custody for 18 months. Offence under Section
406 of the Indian Penal Code prescribes punishment,
which may extend to three years or with fine or with
both. Thus, the petitioner is in custody for more than
one-half of the maximum punishment, which may be
imposed upon him for the offence punishable under
Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code.
11. It is submitted by the learned Sr.
Counsel on behalf of the petitioner that this Court in
exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Considering can pass an order
granting interim bail to the petitioner under the facts
and circumstances of the case. That in all, as per the
allegation made by the Economic Offence Unit, the
petitioner is involved in misappropriation of funds of
Rs. 152 crores approximately. Out of the said money,
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1523 of 2023 dt.07-02-2025
the petitioner has already paid Rs. 98 crores to the
allottees. Secondly, the petitioner already constructed
and handed over possession of 850 flats. He settled
the dispute with 651 allottees. There is though
element of cheating in the allegation made against
the petitioner by the de facto complainant, if the
petitioner is released on bail, he would be able to
further settle the dispute with the remaining intending
purchasers of residential units. Moreover, it is not
possible for the petitioner to pray separately for
interim bail in 69 numbers of cases pending in
different Courts and different jurisdiction.
12. The learned Sr. Counsel, on the other
hand, submits that petitioner realized money from
different persons, not in respect of one or two
projects, but he almost, at the same time,
demonstrated that he was going to construct as many
as hundreds of projects.
13. It is submitted by Mr. V.N.P. Sinha,
learned Sr. Counsel on behalf of the Economic
Offence Unit (EOU) that the petitioner's application
under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing of
F.I.R. is not fit to be entertained on the ground that
on the earlier occasion, the petitioner moved as many
as 10 writ petitions in this Court for identical reliefs.
The said applications were either dismissed or
withdrawn or allowed to be dismissed for default or
remained unattended. Thus, it is contended on behalf
of the EOU that when the petitioner is not entitled to
get main relief for quashing of the F.I.R., he cannot
pray for interim relief by filing applications, which is
not connected with the main relief. In support of his
contention, he draws my attention to the prayer made
by the petitioner in the instant writ petition, which is
as follows:
"The instant writ petition has
been filed by the Petitioner seeking
quashing of multiple F.I.R.s on merits
where the allegations made in the First
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1523 of 2023 dt.07-02-2025
Information Reports or the complaints
are baseless and just to trump up the
charges against the Petitioner, even if
they are taken at their face value and
accepted in their entirety, do not prima
facie constitute any offence under
Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 but
utmost attract Section 406 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 in as much as the
F.I.R.s registered against the Petitioner
are technically instituted to unleash
pressure against the Agrani Homes and to
harass him."
14. It is contended by the learned Sr.
Counsel that in the writ petition itself, the petitioner
has not made any prayer in the form of interim relief
for bail on the principle of Section 438 or 439 of the
Cr.P.C. read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
15. It is also submitted by the learned Sr.
Counsel that the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Satinder Singh Bhasin v. Government
of NCT at Delhi & Ors., was passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution
of India read with Article 32 of the Constitution. It is
recorded in the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Satinder Singh Bhasin v. Government of
NCT at Delhi & Ors., Writ Petition (Criminal) No.
242 of 2019, in paragraph no. 1 that in the writ
petition itself, the petitioner prayed for grant of bail
in respect of F.I.R.s mentioned therein, registered at
Police Station Kasna, Gautam Budh Nagar, Greater
Noida, Uttar Pradesh and Police Station Economic
Offences Wing and at Parliament Street, New Delhi
and all other F.I.R.s. that have been lodged against
the petitioner in the State of Uttar Pradesh and State
of NCT of Delhi.
16. In the instant writ petition, no such
prayer has been made by the petitioner. Thus, the
learned Sr. Counsel for the EOU raised a question as
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1523 of 2023 dt.07-02-2025
to whether the Interlocutory Applications filed on
behalf of the petitioner can be entertained or not.
17. The learned Sr. Counsel appearing on
behalf of EOU next refers to an unreported decision
of the High Court of Kerala in W.P. (Crl.) No. 381 of
2023, dated 25th of August, 2023. In the above-
mentioned writ petition, the petitioner sought for a
direction to club together all the crimes registered
against him as well as a declaration that he is
entitled to be enlarged on bail in all cases registered
against him, in view of the decision in Abhishek
Singh Chauhan v. Union of India, reported in 2022
SCC OnLine SC 1936. In the afore-mentioned case,
a Co-ordinate Bench of Kerala High Court refers to
another decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Anubhav Mittal & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh &
Ors., reported in (2022 LiveLaw (SC) 980). The
Hon'ble Supreme Court found in Anubhav Mittal
that offence of cheating, forgery and fabrication of
valuable documents had occurred at different places
of the country and each victim having a right to
prosecute his complaint through the law enforcement
agency. Therefore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held
that the accused cannot demand conduct of
investigation only with respect to a particular
offence. It was observed that the accused, who had
mobilised offence from different parts of the country
could not plead his inconvenience of having to
defend the case in multiple jurisdictions.
18. In Narinderjit Singh Sahni v. Union
of India, reported in (2002) 2 SCC 210, it is held
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that:
"As regards the issue of a single-
offence, we are afraid that the fact situation of
the matters under consideration would not
permit to lend any credence to such a
submission. Each individual deposit agreement
shall have to be treated as separate and
individual transaction brought about by the
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1523 of 2023 dt.07-02-2025
allurement of the financial companies, since the
parties are different, the amount of deposit is
different as also the period for which the
deposit was effected. It has all the
characteristics of independent transactions and
we do not see any compelling reason to hold it
otherwise. The plea as raised also cannot have
our concurrence."
19. Thus, it is submitted by the learned Sr.
Counsel on behalf of EOU that each individual
agreement of sale of residential units and acceptance
of consideration money constitutes separate and
identical case. The incidents took place at different
places under the different jurisdictions of different
Courts. Therefore, the complaints cannot be clubbed
together and this Court under its extraordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution
cannot grant an order of bail in connection with all
the cases pending against the petitioner at different
stage of investigation, enquiry or trial.
20. It is also submitted by the learned Sr.
Counsel on behalf of EOU (Respondent No. 7) that
amongst the cases pending against the petitioner,
there are some cases registered on police report,
some cases were registered on the basis of a
complaint in the respective jurisdictional Courts of
the learned Magistrates. In view of the provisions
contained in Section 210 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, the cases instituted on police report and
the complaint cases cannot be clubbed together.
Therefore, the petitioner cannot be released on bail
in respect of the case instituted on police report and
the complaint case. In fine, the learned Sr. Counsel
appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 7 submits
that before the cases being clubbed together, the
applications for bail filed on behalf of the petitioner
is pre-mature.
21. The learned Additional Solicitor
General submits that the Enforcement Directorate
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1523 of 2023 dt.07-02-2025
has already taken up the case for investigation
regarding money-trail made by the petitioner in
favour of different Shell Companies by the petitioner.
The learned Additional Solicitor General refers to
page 26 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of
RERA and submits that the petitioner and his family
members and close associates have constituted as
many as 24 Shell Companies and the money collected
from different buyers has already been transferred or
channelized in those companies. The learned ASG
further while referring to page 26 of the counter
affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondent No. 5,
shows the number of fake companies constituted by
the petitioner. Therefore, it is submitted by the
learned Advocate for the Enforcement Directorate
that the petitioner is not entitled to bail in connection
with a case instituted under the Prevention of Money
Laundering Act (PMLA). In support of his
contention, he refers to a decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Madanlal
Choudhary & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.,
reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 929.
22. In reply, it is submitted by the learned
Sr. Counsel on behalf of the petitioner that Section
420 of the Indian Penal Code is predicate offence
under PMLA. He refers to his previous argument to
contend that allegation under Section 420 of the
I.P.C. is not applicable against the petitioner.
Therefore, RCIR referred to by the Enforcement
Directorate does not have any reason to be
registered."
26. Section 406 of the IPC is the penal provision over
criminal breach of trust. Criminal breach of trust is defined in
Section 405 of the IPC. The provision runs thus:-
"405. Criminal breach of trust.--Whoever,
being in any manner entrusted with property, or
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1523 of 2023 dt.07-02-2025
with any dominion over property, dishonestly
misappropriates or converts to his own use that
property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that
property in violation of any direction of law
prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be
discharged, or of any legal contract, express or
implied, which he has made touching the discharge
of such trust, or wilfully suffers any other person so
to do, commits "criminal breach of trust".
[Explanation 1].--A person, being an
employer 3 [of an establishment whether exempted
under section 17 of the Employees' Provident Funds
and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of
1952) or not] who deducts the employee's
contribution from the wages payable to the
employee for credit to a Provident Fund or Family
Pension Fund established by any law for the time
being in force, shall be deemed to have been
entrusted with the amount of the contribution so
deducted by him and if he makes default in the
payment of such contribution to the said Fund in
violation of the said law, shall be deemed to have
dishonestly used the amount of the said contribution
in violation of a direction of law as aforesaid.]
[Explanation 2.--A person, being an
employer, who deducts the employees' contribution
from the wages payable to the employee for credit to
the Employees' State Insurance Fund held and
administered by the Employees' State Insurance
Corporation established under the Employees' State
Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), shall be deemed
to have been entrusted with the amount of the
contribution so deducted by him and if he makes
default in the payment of such contribution to the
said Fund in violation of the said Act, shall be
deemed to have dishonestly used the amount of the
said contribution in violation of a direction of law
as aforesaid."
27. In order to constitute an offence of criminal
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1523 of 2023 dt.07-02-2025
breach of trust it is to be looked into as to whether
(i) there was any entrustment of the property in favour
of the accused;
(ii) whether the property was dishonestly
misappropriated or conversed to his own use or dishonestly
disposed of by the accused in violation of any direction of law
prescribing mode in which such trust may be discharged.
28. In the instant case, it is the case of the prosecution
that the petitioner collected huge amount of money from the
intending purchasers without even purchasing the plots of land
for construction of flats. The intending purchasers paid their
money entrusting the petitioner that they would get their home
but said money was misappropriated. Even from the
investigation made by the ED, it is revealed that with the help of
the money collected from the market, the petitioner purchased
flats on his own money.
29. Collection of money without the permission of
RERA and purchasing and identifying the plot prima facie
suggests that from the very beginning of transaction, the
petitioner had a dishonest intention of deception and false
inducement on the basis of which money was collected.
30. In view of the above ingredients available on
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1523 of 2023 dt.07-02-2025
record, I do not find any reason to quash the FIRs instituted
against the petitioner. As a result, the instant writ petition is
dismissed on contest.
31. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
32. With the disposal of the instant petition, the
Interlocutory Applications, if any, are treated to be disposed of.
(Bibek Chaudhuri, J)
uttam/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE 24.01.2025
Uploading Date 07.02.2025
Transmission Date N/A
