CHIRAG M. PATHAK & ORS. ETC.ETC. versus DOLLYBEN KANTILAL & ORS.

Citation: [2017] 14 S.C.R. 424 · Decided: 15-11-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.K. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2017] 14 S.C.R. 424 
CHIRAG M. PATHAK & ORS. ETC.ETC. 
v. 
DOLLYBEN KANTILAL & ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 1947-1956 of2017) 
NOVEMBER 15,2017 
[R. K. AGRAWAL AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.) 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 482 - Six FIRs filed 
by appellants in different Police Stations in the State of Gujarat 
C against jive different Co-operative Housing Societies for commission 
of various offences allegedly committed by accused-respondent nos. 
1. 2 and 3 - Quashing of jive FIRs other than the first FIR sought 
by respondents 11/s. 482 on the ground that the first FIR takes care 
of remaining five FIRs, allowed by High Court - Held: There was 
no justifiable reason for High Court to quash the five FIRs by taking 
D 
recourse to inherent powers u/s. 482 - In view of various factors 
inter alia that all five Co-operative Societies against whom six F!Rs 
were registered are different, their members are different. their area 
of operation is different. it is not possible to hold that all the FIRs 
are overlapping on one another and that first FIR alone will be 
E sufficient to take care of the remaining five F!Rs - There are few 
significant distinguishing features in six FIRs - All six FIRs filed 
against the respondents are legal and proper and each has to be 
given effect for making proper investigation in relation to the 
offences alleged in each FIR - Impugned judgment set aside. 
F 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- s.482-Jnherent powers 
of Court - Scope of - Discussed. 
Disposing of the matters, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 There appeared no justifiable reason for the 
High Court to quash the five FlRs by taking recourse to the 
G inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal 
Procedure, 1973. [Para 17][432-F-G] 
H 
1.2 All the five Co-Operative Societies against whom the 
afore-mentioned FIRs were registered are different, their 
members are different, their area of operation is different, the 
424 
CHIRAG M. PATHAK v. DOLLYBEN KANTILAL 
425 
lands which were sold/transferred are also situ~ted in different A 
areas, the lands were also sold/transferred to different parties on 
different dates for different sums, the accounting books are 
different, the persons involved in the falsification of the accounts 
of every Society are different etc. etc. There are few significant 
distinguishing features in six FIRs. Having regard to the totality B 
of the factual allegations made for constituting the commission of 
several offences in relation to every Co-Operative Society, it is 
not possible to hold that all the FIRs are overlapping on one 
another and that first FIR alone will be sufficient to take care of 
the remaining five FIRs. [Paras 20, 21 and 31](433-.B-C; 435-E] 
1.3 There may be some overlapping allegations in the FIRs 
but that is due to myriad reasons and one reason could be that all 
the Co-operative Societies were engaged in the same business 
of sale/pur~hase of housing and the plots of land which were sold 
c 
to different persons in different areas by same accused persons 
due to their involvement in the affairs of all Co-Operative D 
Societies. However, these facts were not by themselves sufficient 
to quash the five FIRs at the stage of investigation itself. Such 
issues and many more, namely, the nature and manner of 
conspiracy, whether it was confined to each Society or there was 
one or larger conspiracy, how and in what manner it was E 
.accomplished, who were parties to it, who were those persons 
who secured financial benefits, what was the modus operandi for 
mis-appropriation of the funds of each Society and how the funds 
were siphoned off from each Society etc., need detailed 
investigation with respect to each Cooperative Society. Once 
the investigation is complete in relation to each Society, the same 
would form part of the separate charge-sheet for being proved 
with the aid of evidence in a competent Court against each Society 
and persons involved in the scam. [Paras 22, 23)(433-D-G] 
1.4 The High Court, in exercise of its powers under Section 
F 
482 CrPC, cannot undertake a detailed examination of the facts 
G 
contained in the FIRs by acting as an Appellate Court and draws 
its own conclusion. It is more so when investigation in other. 
Societies is not yet complete. It is only when on reading the FIR, 
a sheer absurdity in the allegations is noticed and when no prima 
facie cognizable case is made out on its mere reading due to 
H 
426 
SUPREME COURT REPORT

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.