2021 (8) TMI 1422 - HC - Indian Laws

Issuance of Multiple first information reports (FIRs) based on the same transactions - Interpretation of Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 - HELD THAT - From the perusal of the instant first information report it, prima facie, appears that it is in respect of the loan accounts of the Sonkar Group i.e. account Nos. 977, 998 and 1087. Item Nos. 91, 92 and 93 referred to in first information report No. 806 of 2019 are in respect of the same group of borrowers and account Nos. 977 and 1087, apart from account No. 928. There can be no qualm with the proposition that offence warrant thorough investigation so as to unearth the alleged fraud. However, once the first information report in respect of a transaction or occurrence is registered, it is trite, there can be no second first information report in respect of the very same transaction or occurrence. There is no bar for investigation or further investigation in the offences committed in the course of same transaction. But there cannot be second first information report. It is directed that though the investigating officer may proceed with the investigation, yet, no coercive action be taken against the petitioners till 30th August, 2021 - the petitioners are directed to appear before the concerned investigating officer on 16th, 18th and 20th August, 2021 in between 10 am to 12 noon and thereafter as and when called by the investigating officer. List on 30th August, 2021.

Summary

Issues:
Multiple first information reports (FIRs) based on the same transactions; Ad-interim relief against coercive action; Interpretation of Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960; Legal protection during investigation.

Analysis:

The High Court of Bombay, comprising Judges S.S. Shinde and N.J. Jamadar, heard arguments from Mr. Ravi Kadam, Senior Counsel, and Mr. Nilesh Ojha, among others, regarding two Writ Petitions (St.) filed in 2021. The court issued notices returnable on 30th August, 2021, and directed the petitioners to serve private notices to respondents through various means and file proof of service. The petitioners sought ad-interim relief to prevent coercive action during the proceedings.

Mr. Kadam highlighted previous court orders related to the subject matter of the FIRs and argued against the lodging of multiple FIRs for the same transactions. Mr. Ojha supported these arguments, citing past court orders granting interim protection. However, Mrs. Pai, representing the State, contended that the instant FIRs were distinct from previous ones based on auditor reports under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, emphasizing the seriousness of the alleged scam.

Upon reviewing the submissions and evidence, the court found merit in Mr. Kadam's argument that the transactions in the FIRs were the same, indicating a potential abuse of process. The court reiterated that while further investigations are permissible, multiple FIRs for the same transaction are impermissible. Citing previous judgments, the court emphasized the need for careful consideration before registering new FIRs on the same allegations.

Consequently, the court granted limited ad-interim protection to the petitioners until the next hearing date, directing them to cooperate with the investigation. The petitioners were instructed to appear before the investigating officer on specified dates. The court scheduled the final disposal of the petitions, along with related cases, for 30th August, 2021, to ensure a comprehensive resolution of the issues at hand.