Merging Of Subsequent FIRs To The First As Statement Would Not Apply To Cases Involving Separate Incidents: Allahabad HC

Facts of the Case

• Garvit Innovative Promoters Limited (GIPL), an investor company, was engaged in the business of rental of bikes, and for this purpose, it took investments from the public.
• A bank account was opened in the Noble Cooperative Bank Limited (NCBL), and the investments had come to the bank accounts of the Company.
• The profits arising from the business was said to be paid to the investors.
• On the direction of the Company, the Bank transferred the funds elsewhere, and the Bank had also issued around 2, 61, 000 cheques after a request from the Company.
• Several FIRs were filed against the Company as well as the petitioner, who is the Chief Executive Officer of the Bank.
• The main allegations are that the Bank and the Company had cheated around 3 Lakh people involving 4000 Crore Rupees.
• The present petition was filed by the petitioner before the Allahabad High Court seeking its direction to treat FIRs subsequent to the first, to be statement under Section 162 Cr. P. C.

Submissions of the Petitioner

• The petitioner claimed that the Bank officers had issued cheques without his knowledge and permission, and therefore, case could not lie against him.
• He further alleged that the Company had threatened him when the bank intimated about the company’s illegalities to the Reserve Bank of India and FIU.
• The Counsel, representing the petitioner, pleaded that the Court should direct the respondent State to treat FIRs subsequent to the first as statement under Section 162 Cr. P. C.

Prayer

• To direct or order the Respondents to merge all subsequent FIRs as statements under Section 162 of Cr. P. C.
• To direct or order the Respondents to treat all the additional Charge Sheets as Supplementary Charge Sheets to the main Charge Sheet.
• To direct or order the Respondent to conduct only one trial proceeding for all connected matters, at the earliest.
• To direct or order the Respondents to stop issuing multiple remand orders against the Petitioner.

Issues Involved

• Whether all the subsequent FIRs after the first can be treated as statement under Section 162 Cr. P. C?

Judgements relevant to the Case

• T. T. Antony vs. State of Kerala and others,(2001) 6 SCC 181: It was held that subsequent FIRs should be taken as statement under Section 162 Cr. P. C.
• Amish Devgan vs. Union of India and others, (2021) 1 SCC 1: Here too, subsequent FIRs were merged with the main FIR as statements.
• Arnab Goswami vs. Union of India and others, (2020) 14 SCC 12

Court’s Order

• The Court did not accept the plea of the petitioner, and dismissed it accordingly.
• Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari stated that the facts of the case would not attract the judgements adduced by the Petitioner.
• The Two-judge Bench held that the referred cases would fit only when there is one incident, however, in the instant case, there are separate incidents for which separate FIRs have been registered.

What are your views on the Court’s order?