Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2014 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (4) TMI 1244 - BOMBAY HIGH COURTIssuance of necessary directions for clubbing the FIRs filed by some of the respondents together with the FIR filed by the Punjab National Bank - Issuance of necessary directions for treating all the FIRs as a single FIR - principal contention of the applicant is that the applicants did not approach the member banks of the consortium individually for the purpose of obtaining the sanction of the credit facilities. HELD THAT:- There can be no manner of doubt that in respect of the same set of facts, there can be only one FIR. A second report even if lodged cannot be registered as FIR, particularly when offence has already been registered. It would at the most amount to information being communicated to the police during investigation. In the present case, the FIRs indeed disclose the existence of a conspiracy and the representations being made to the consortium. According to the respondents, each individual works contract, therefore, amounted to individual action of cheating of the concerned member banks of the consortium. We had called for the case diaries of the offences which have been registered and we find that in some of the cases, the investigation is complete. At this stage, it would certainly be a premature exercise to determine if the cheating of all the member banks was pursuant to only one conspiracy and, therefore, there should be only one FIR or the cheating of the individual banks is an individual offence which can be investigated by the police. The existence of smaller conspiracies pursuant to the larger conspiracy and the inducement of the individual member banks of the consortium to give credit facility would be a matter which would require to be investigated by the police. At this stage, no straitjacket formula can be evolved for determining if it was a single transaction or there were multiple different other transactions whereby the member banks of the consortium were cheated. As per the procedure of the consortium banking, a core committee was formed and representations, if any, were made to the core committee. The core committee was constituted of the members of the consortium banks. Thus any representation which was made by the applicants to the core committee was a representation which was made to the individual banks of the consortium. The core committee was, in fact, acting for and on behalf of the members of the consortium. It cannot, therefore, be said that the representation was made to the core committee only and was not a representation which was made to the members of the consortium. Since the representations were made to the core committee which was acting on behalf of each individual bank and, therefore, even if no representation was made to the individual banks, yet it amounted to a representation, though made to the core committee, as a representation made to the individual banks. Even if, therefore, at this stage, it is concluded that there was only one larger conspiracy without there being any smaller conspiracies, yet by virtue of the individual works contract, the individual banks were cheated to the extent of the credit facility offered by them, which would, therefore, amount to a distinct and a separate offence, though individual representation was not made to the member banks individually. The investigation in respect of all the FIRs is not complete. The case diaries of certain FIRs have been produced before us for our perusal. However, since the charge-sheet has not been filed, according to us, it would be wholly inappropriate to make any reference to the investigation which has been carried out and particularly to the material which has been collected during investigation - it is clear that all the banks have been cheated and have been induced to give financial assistance to the applicants. Though there is a single conspiracy, yet the act of individually cheating the member banks without there being actually an individual representation would constitute a separate offence and the respondents-banks, therefore, would be justified in lodging individual FIRs. The applicants therefore, are not entitled to the reliefs which the applicants have prayed for in this application. Application dismissed.
|