July 8, 2019:
Delhi High Court has held that police cannot register single FIR for several victims and that for each FIR police shall have to file separate chargesheet.
A bench of Justice Sanghi and Justice Mehta has passed the Order in the case titled as State vs Khimji Bhai Jadeja on 08.07.2019.
A Ld. Additional Sessions Judge had made a reference to the High Court under Section-395 CrPC for adjudication of following questions:
1. 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 others as witnesses?
2. If in case the Hon’ble Court concludes that each deposit has to be treated as separate transaction, then how many such transactions can be amalgamated into one charge- sheet?
3. Whether under the given circumstances the concept of maximum punishment of seven years for a single offence can be pressed into service by the accused by clubbing and amalgamating all the transactions into one FIR with maximum punishment of seven years?
High Court observed "The practice followed by the Delhi Police/ State of registering a single FIR on the basis of the complaint of one of the complainants/ victims, and of treating the other complainants/ victims merely as witnesses, even otherwise, raises very serious issues with regard to deprivation of rights of such complainants/victims to pursue their complaints, and to ensure that the culprits are brought to justice.................. Thus, the practice adopted by the State/ Delhi Police, and which is sought to be defended by them, is clearly erroneous and not sustainable in law".
The High Court then answered the first point as "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 separate 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".
The High Court answered the second point as "Thus, our answer to question (b) is that in respect of each FIR, a separate final report (and wherever necessary supplementary/ further charge sheet(s)) have to be filed, and there is no question of amalgamation of the final reports that may be filed in respect of different FIRs. The amalgamation, strictly in terms of Section 219 Cr.P.C., would be considered by the Court/ Magistrate at the stage of framing of charge, since Section 219(1) mandates that where the requirements set out in the said Section are met, the accused “may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, any number of them not exceeding three”.
The High Court answered the third point as "In our view, the aforesaid question does not survive in view of the answer to question (a) and (b). It would be for the Trial Court to consider the sentence to which the convict may be subjected as per law, keeping in view the well settled principles of sentencing. In this regard, we may only refer to Section 31 of the Cr.P.C. which, inter alia, provides that when a person is convicted at one trial of two or more offences, the Court, may subject to the provisions of Section 71 IPC, sentence him for such offences to the several punishments prescribed therefor which such Court is competent to inflict. It further provides that such punishments, which consist of imprisonment, would commence one after the expiration of the other, unless the Court directs that such punishments shall run concurrently. The limitation on the quantum of sentence is prescribed by sub Section 2 of Section 31 of the Cr.P.C., but the same would apply in respect of convictions at one trial of two or more offences. However, where the trials are multiple, which result into multiple convictions, the proviso to Section 31(2) would have no application".
Read the Order here:
Share this Document :Picture Source :
