[Cites 18, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pappu Sharma vs State Of Haryana And Others on 21 April, 2026
CRM-M-5177-2026 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-5177-2026 (O&M)
Reserved on : 11.03.2026
.2026
Pronounced on : 21.04.2026
.2026
Pappu Sharma
..... Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana & Ors.
..... Respondents
Respondent
[
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH
Argued by:
by Mr. Nitin Bhanwala,, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Ramender Singh Chauhan
Chauhan, AAG Haryana.
*****
SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J.
This petition under Section 528 of 'the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita
Sanhita, 2023',, has been filed by the petitioner for
clubbing/consolidating 10 FIRs,, mentioned in Annexure P/1, registered at
the instance of different complainants on similar allegations in different
police stations against the petitioner.
2. In nut-shell the facts emerging from record are that there exists
a society named 'Human Welfare Credit & Thrift Co
Co-operative
operative Society
Societ
Limited',, and that the abovementioned Society offered various investment
schemes, such as Fixed Deposits, Recurring Deposits, monthly income plans
plan
and 'Sukanya Samridhi Yojana'.
Yojana' Thee abovementioned schemes were
w
launched with a claim of providing higher interest rates
rates, than the raates
offered by Government
Governmen Banks.. The assurance of complete safety of the
invested amounts was also given.. Relying upon the abovesaid
representations, the complainants in all the FIRs registered against the
petitioner invested different sums of money in the abovementioned Society.
Societ
However, after the year 2024, the Society stopped returning the invested
amounts.. It has been alleged in the FIRs that the Society has cheated the
investors and usurped the money of investors/depositors
investors/depositors.
3. The petitioner has further claaimed that there is no allegation that
t
he had played an active or role in the commission of alleged offences. As per
petitionerr, in a very clandestine manner, different FIRs have been lodged
against him, which pertain to the same transactions and have similar
allegations. The petitioner has further alleged
alleged that as on today there are ten
FIRs registered against him.
him The details of such FIRs have been provided,
which read as under:-
under:
Sr. FIR Dated Sections Police
No. No. Station
(i) 40 27.02.2025 120-B,
B, 406, 408, 420 of IPC and Sanoli,
Section 3 of the Haryana Panipat
Protection
rotection of Interest of
Depositors in Financial
Establishment Act, 2013 and
Sections 21 and 23 of Banning of
Unregulated Deposit Schemes
Act, 2019.
(ii) 49 27.02.2025 120-B,
B, 406, 408, 420 of IPC, Israna,
Section 3 of HPIDFE Act, 2013 Panipat
and Sections 221 and 23 of BUDS
Act
(iii) 114 27.02.2025 120-B,
B, 406, 408, 420 of IPC, Industrial
Section 3 of HPIDFE Act, 2013 Sector-29,
29,
and Sections 21 and 23 of BUDS Panipat
Act
(iv) 134 24.02.2025 120-B,
B, 406, 408, 420 of IPC, Chandnibag
Section 3 of HPIDFE Act, 201
2013 h, Panipat
and Sections 21 and 23 of BUDS
Act
(v) 449 12.11.2024 Section 420 IPC and Section 25 Tehsil
of BUDS Act Camp,
Panipat
(vi) 22 22.01.2025 Sections 316(2), 318(2) and Murthal,
318(4) of BNS Sonipat
(vii) 703 17.12.2024 Sections 316(2), 31
318(4), 61(2) of Thanesar,
BNS, Section 3 of HPIDFE Act, Kurukshetra
2013 and Sections 21 and 23 of
BUDS Act
(viii) 392 11.12.2024 Section 406 and 420 of IPC Munak,
Karnal
(ix) 315 18.08.2025 Section 120-B,
B, 406 and 420 of IP Madhuban,
and Section 3 of BUDS Act Karnal
arnal
(x) 129 27.02.2025 120-B,
B, 406, 408, 420 of IPC, Samalkha,
Section 3 of HPIDFE Act, 2013 Panipat
and Sections 21 and 23 of BUDS
Act
4. According to the petitioner, he has been subjected to multiple
prosecutions, through different FIRs registered on similar and identical
allegations by different complainants, which are arising out of the same set
of transactions and facts, and that the multiplicity of the FIR not only causes
serious prejudice to the petitioner's right to fair investigation and defence,
nce,
but also amount to abuse of process of law. Hence the present petition for
clubbing of FIRs.
5. Heard.
6. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that
the petitioner, who is a 50-year-old
50 old respectable member of the Society,
Society
working
ng in a textile company at Panipat, is being subjected to multiple
prosecutions, arising out of the same transactions. According to learned
counsel for the petitioner, a Society, namely 'Human Welfare Credit &
Thrift Co-operative
Co Society Limited',, was offe
offering
ring various investment
schemes, assuring higher interest rates, and that various persons including
the complainant had invested in those schemes, and reap
reaped the benefit of the
schemes.
s. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, in the year 2024,
24, the
Society stopped paying the benefit of invested money
money, and therefore, the
investors levelled allegations of cheating against the Society, result
resulting into
multiple FIRs.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that
in the abovementioned
abovementioned FIRs, the petitioner is being prosecuted as an
accused, and that in any of the abovementioned FIRs, no specific role or
active involvement has been attributed to the petitioner. As per learned
counsel for the petitioner,
petitioner in several of the aboveme
abovementioned
ntioned FIRs, even the
name of the petitioner does not find mention at initial stage, but,, during the
course of investigation, merely with an intent to falsely implicate the
petitioner, the Investigating Agency is now attempting to add his name.
name
According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the Investigating Agency has
already filed charge-sheets
charge in two Districts, i.e. Kurukshetra and Sonipat,
Sonipat
and that in a most surprising manner, five FIRs have been registered against
the petitioner on the same very day,
day, i.e. on 27.02.2025, in five different
Police Stations in the same District, which is very unusual on the part of the
Investigating Agency.
Agency The learned counssel for the petitioner has contend
ded
that the abovementioned
a events give risee to serious doubt on the intentions
of the prosecuting
prosecuti agency, as the multiple FIRs have been lodged, containing
vague and unsubstantiated
uns allegations.
8. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner
that the abovementioned pattern of registration of FIRs is arbitrary and casts
a shadow of suspicion over the fairness aand impartiality of the investigative
process. As per learned
learned counsel for the petitioner, all the ten cases, which
have been filed against the petitioner, similar false and baseless allegations
have been levelled, and that the pattern of abovementioned cases clearly
indicates a targeted and mechanical approach by the Investigating Agency.
While referring to the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India in the case of 'The State (NCT) of Delhi V/s Khimji Bhai
Jadeja' Neutral Citation 2026 INSC 25,
25, the learned counsel for the petitioner
has contended
ontended that instant case is squarely covered by the principles of law
propounded in the abovementioned case, and therefore, there should be a
direction to the learned trial Court to club/consolidate all the ten FIRs
FIRs,, in
view of the settled position of law proppounded by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India in the case of 'Alok Kumar Vs State of Bihar & Ors.'
SLP(Crl) No.4073/2025.
9. The learned State Counsel has controverted the
abovementioned arguments. According to learned State Counsel, in the
present case, the
th filing of ten FIRs, in different police stations in different
Districts,, at the instance of different complainants in itself shows that the
cause of action for each of the FIRs was different
different. It has also been contended
by learned State Counsel that the filing
filing of different FIRs in different police
stations of different Districts,
Districts demolishes the plea of the petitioner that the
FIRs have been filed with mala fide intentions. As per learned Sttate
Counsel, there is no force in the allegatioon that the Investigating Agency is
having any design to harass the petitioner.
10. According to learned State Counsel, each of the complainant
has approached different police stations
stations, according to his own cause of
action, and therefore, different FIRs have been lodged in different police
stations. As per learned State Counsel, since the Invest
Investigating
igating Agency in the
abovementioned cases are different, the allegations of mala fide intentions
on the part of the Investigating Agency cannot sustain. The learned State
Counsel while referring to the principles of law laid down in the case of
'State
State of Andhra Pradesh V/s Cheemalapati Ganeswara Rao &Anr.' AIR
1963 SC 1850,
1850, has contended that each of the complainant has a separate
cause of action,
action as every such complainant had a different kind of
transactions at different point of time, and different amounts were deposited
ed.
11. It has also been contended by learned State Counsel that during
the course of investigation, specific role of the petitioner has been found in
the commission of offence, and that the charge
charge-sheet
sheet in several cases have
already been filed, and thus, at this stage, the consolidation of FIRs is not
possible. While referring to the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of 'Khimji Bhai Jadeja' (supra), the
learned State Counsel has contended that th
thee proper course available to the
petitioner is to approach the learned trial Court and seek the consolidation of
trial.
12. The record has been perused carefully.
13. In the present case, at the very outset it is pertinent to mention
here that the petitioner,
petit in para No.4 of the petition
petition, has contended that
charge-sheet
sheets in two cases in District Kurukshetra and Sonipat have already
been filed. In the present case, this fact cannot be ignored that several
complaints have been filed by several complainants with
th regard to their
respective transactions with the society, namely 'Human Welfare Credit &
Thrift Co--operative Society Limited', and during the course of investigation,
it has been found that specific role, in the commission of offence
offence,, is
attributable to the petitioner.
pe
14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of 'Khimji
Bhai Jadeja' (supra), has dealt with the similar situation. In the abovesaid
case, a finding recorded by the Division Bench of Delhi High on the
following
ing question has been set aside. The question framed by the Division
Bench of Delhi High Court was:-
was:
'a. Whether in a case of inducement, allurement and cheating
of large number of investors/depositors in pursuance to a
criminal conspiracy,, each deposit by an investor constitutes a
separate and individual transaction or all such transactions
can be amalgamated and clubbed into a single FIR by showing
one investor as complainant and other as witnesses?
witnesses?'
15. The abovementioned question was answered by the Division
vision
Bench in the following words:-
'....
.... Thus, our answer to Question (a) is that in a case of
inducement, allurement and cheating of large number of
investors/depositors in pursuance to a criminal conspiracy,
each deposit by an investor constitutes a sep
separate
arate and
individual transaction. All such transactions cannot be
amalgamated and clubbed into a single FIR by showing one
investor as the complainant and others as witnesses. In respect
of each such transaction, it is imperative for the State to
register a separate FIR if the complainant discloses
commission of a cognizable offence.
offence.'
16. The abovementioned observations of Division Bench of Delhi
High could not hold good before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
However, it has been observed by the Hon'
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that
'Section
Section 218(1) CrPC requires a distinct and separate charge for every
distinct offence and each separate charge should be tried separately. Sections
219 to 223 CrPC constitute exceptions to this general rule and stipul
stipulate
ate the
circumstances in which deviațion
deviațion therefrom can be made. Under Section 219
CrPC, three such offences committed during a year can be the subject matter
of a single trial [now, five such offences, under Section 242 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanita,
Sanita, 2023 (BNSS)]. Under Sections 220(1) CrPC and
223(a) and (d) CrPC, consolidated charges can be framed against several
accused persons in relation to several offences, if such offences are
committed during the course of the same transaction. It would, therefore,
turn upon the offences forming part of the 'same transaction'.'
17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has further observed that
'precedential
precedential law has laid down triple tests, though not to be applied
cumulatively, to decide when separate actio
actions
ns can be treated as part of the
'same transaction'.
transaction' The abovesaid parameters are :-
(i)) unity of purpose and design;
(ii)) proximity of time and place; and
(iii) continuity of action.
18. As per Hon'ble Supreme Coourt of India, the abovementioned
tests may be applied to ascertain whether a series of acts form part of the
same transaction or not. It is not necessary at the present stage to consider
whether consolidation of charges under Section 220(1) CrPC should be
resorted to, as that would depend upon the opinion of the Magistrate on the
strength of the findings recorded
recorded during the investigation. If it is opined that
all the incidents partake of the same transaction, there can be one trial under
Section 220(1) CrPC and Section 223(a) and 223(d)
(d) CrPC. If, however, it is
concluded that there are several transactions and disti
distinct
nct offences in relation
to different victims, there have to be separate trials for each offence, subject
to Section 219 CrPC/ Section 242 BNSS, which allows the Trial Court to try
three/five offences of the same kind committed within a year
year'.
19. The Hon'ble
'ble Supreme Cour
Court of India in the abovementioned
case has also observed that 'consolidation of FIRs is permissible in law, but
that would depend upon the conclusion to be arrived at after investigation'.
As per Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the above
abovementioned
mentioned case, a right
procedure was adopted by the Delhi Police in registering one FIR and
treating the complaint received from 1851 other complainants as statements
under Section 161 CrPC.
CrPC. According to Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the
inference to be drawn from the charge-sheets,
sheets, as filed, would be left to the
Judicial Magistrate concerned to consider, so as to ascertain whether the
various acts of cheating attributed to the accused persons constitute part of
the same transaction,
transaction, thereby bringing the
them
m within the ambit of Section
220(1) CrPC and Section 223(a) & (d) CrPC
CrPC.. As directed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India, if the offence formed part of the same transaction,
the Judicial Magistrate would be entitled to charge and try them together, as
enabled
abled by the aforesaid provisions, as it would be in the larger public
interest to do so.
20. Similar question has been dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India in the case of 'Ravinder Singh Sidhu V/s The State of Punjab
& Ors.', Writ Petition (Crl)
rl) No.394 of 2024, it has been observed in the
abovemenntioned case that 'the
the law in this issue is now fairly well settled. It
has been held by this Court that multiplicity of proceedings will not be in
larger public interest. Further, since many States have invoked local Acts,
particulars
iculars the Act dealing with the Protection of Interest of Depositors,
transferring them out of the State also will not serve the ends of justice.
Hence, the correct course of action would be to merge the FIRs with the
earliest FIR in the State concerned'.
concerned
21. In the abovementioned case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India has allowed the writ petition in the ffollowing words:-
"while the first FIR will be treated as the First Information
Report (hereinafter for convenience called the 'principal FIR'),
the
he subsequent FIRs in each State shall be treated as
Statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). The Investigating Officer in the
criminal case arising out of the principal FIR in the concerned
State will be free to file supplementary
pplementary charge
charge-sheets
sheets after the
collation of all records concerning other FIRs in the concerned
State which are clubbed in terms of this order. We further
direct that if Police Report under Section 173 of CrPC stands
already filed in the clubbed FIRs aand
nd the concerned Courts
have taken cognizance thereof, the said FIR and criminal cases
would also stand transferred and merged/clubbed along with
the principal FIR to be proceeded with in accordance with
law.'
22. In the case of 'Alok Kumar V/s The State of Bihar & Ors.'
Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.4073/2025, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
of India recorded the following observations:
observations:-
'the first thing that we should do is to order clubbing of all the
81 FIRs/criminal cases registered against the petition
petitioner.
We direct that the very first FIR registered against the
petitioner dated 11.01.2018 with the Shashtri Nagar Police
Station, Patna, Bihar shall be treated as the main FIR. All other
First Information Reports shall be treated as statements under
Section
on 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short
"the CrPC"). We are passing this order in tune with the
decision of this Court in the case of "Satinder Singh Bhasin v.
State of U.P. and Another" reported in 2023 (14) SCC 805.'
23. Taking into consideration
sideration the abovementioned principles of
law, which are applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case
and the fact that all the FIRs against the petitioner are emanating with regard
to transactions with the same Society regaarding similar
lar type of allegations, it
is hereby observed that in the given fact-ssituation, it shall be appropriate that
t
all the FIRs are clubbed together. Since the highest number of FIRs perttain
to District Panipat and the oldest FIR, too, belongs to District Panipat, it is
hereby ordered that all the FIRs/charge-sheets
FIRs/cha sheets detailed at Sr. No.(vi), (vii
vii),
(viii) and (ix) in the table, shall stand transferred to Panipat and the FIR
No.449 dated 12.11.2024 shall serve as principal FIR and all the subsequent
complaints/FIRs shall be treated as the statement of complainants under
Section 161 of CrPC. If charge-sheet in anny of the abovementioned cases has
already been filed, the abovementioned charge
charge-sheet
sheet shall be treated as
supplementary charge-sheet
charge sheet in the main case.
24. For rest of the prayers, the innstant petition is hereby dismisseed.
25. With these observations, thhe present petition stands parrtly
allowed, accordingly.
a
26. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of, accordingly.
(SURYA PARTAP SINGH))
JUDGE
21.04.202
Gaurav Thakur
Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
