2014 (4) TMI 1244 - HC - Indian Laws

Issuance 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.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Quashing and setting aside multiple FIRs.
2. Clubbing multiple FIRs into a single FIR.
3. Restraining registration of new cases based on existing or future complaints.
4. Restraining coercive action against accused persons.
5. Staying further investigations in the FIRs.
6. Issuance of a single report under Section 173(2) of the CrPC.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Quashing and Setting Aside Multiple FIRs:
The applicants sought to quash and set aside multiple FIRs filed against them. The court noted that the dismissal of a prior writ petition by a Division Bench had already established that the FIRs prima facie disclosed the commission of an offense under Section 420 read with Section 120-B of the IPC. Consequently, the court held that it was not open to re-examine the FIRs for the same purpose.

2. Clubbing Multiple FIRs into a Single FIR:
The applicants argued that the allegations in the FIRs formed part of the same transaction and thus should be treated as a single FIR. The court examined the procedure of consortium banking and noted that while the applicants made representations to the consortium, the individual banks sanctioned credit limits based on these representations. The court concluded that even if there was a single conspiracy, the act of cheating individual banks constituted separate offenses. Therefore, the court held that the respondents were justified in lodging individual FIRs.

3. Restraining Registration of New Cases Based on Existing or Future Complaints:
The applicants requested to restrain respondent no.1 from registering new cases based on existing or future complaints from consortium members. The court did not find merit in this request, as it determined that the individual acts of cheating warranted separate investigations and FIRs.

4. Restraining Coercive Action Against Accused Persons:
The applicants sought to restrain respondent no.1 from taking any coercive steps against the accused persons in the FIRs. The court did not grant this relief, as it found that the investigation into the individual offenses was justified and necessary.

5. Staying Further Investigations in the FIRs:
The applicants requested a stay on further investigations in the FIRs. The court, after reviewing the case diaries and the stage of the investigation, concluded that it was premature to determine whether the offenses constituted a single transaction or multiple transactions. Therefore, the court did not grant a stay on the investigations.

6. Issuance of a Single Report under Section 173(2) of the CrPC:
The applicants sought an order directing respondent no.1 to file a single report under Section 173(2) of the CrPC. The court held that since the individual banks were cheated through separate acts, each act constituted a distinct offense, and thus, separate reports were justified.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the criminal application, finding no merit in the applicants' requests to quash the FIRs, club them into a single FIR, restrain the registration of new cases, or stay further investigations. The court emphasized that the observations made were based on the pleadings and documents annexed to the application and should not be construed as findings on the merits of the matter. The interim order was extended for eight weeks to allow the applicants to file appropriate proceedings in the Supreme Court.