Rajasthan HC consolidates 259 FIRs against Sanjivani Group chairman, says proceedings were punishable due to violation of right to speedy trial

High Court of Rajasthan has used its inherent powers under Section 482, CrPC, to group 259 FIRs filed against Chairman of Sanjivani Credit Cooperative Society (“Applicant”) into different groups on the basis of geographical location of such FIRs and has observed that in view of these many cases, the Applicant is being sent from one place to another without being given a fair chance to bring his cases before the court.

“He is caught in a vicious circle of criminal proceedings in which the proceedings themselves have become punishment. A serious question arises whether the proceedings against the accused should be called an indictment or a prosecution. Whether it is a prosecution or an indictment, it must in any case be concluded within a reasonable period of time. A long detention of a person without effective furtherance of the criminal proceedings cannot be considered as a prosecution in accordance with the law.”

The bank of Judge Farjand Ali heard a petition filed by Vikram Singh seeking consolidation of cases of cheating, misappropriation of property and criminal conspiracy against him. The petitioner was the chairman of Sanjivani Credit Cooperative Society, which had registered a multi-tier cooperative society in 2019.

Thousands of investors/depositors/members from all over Rajasthan and some other states were registered, but ultimately the company failed to make their payments, coupled with certain allegations of mismanagement and misappropriation of funds. This was followed by a spate of identical FIRs against the complainant, totalling nearly 259 criminal cases registered at different locations in Rajasthan on the same cause of action and same type of transaction.

Counsel for the applicant submitted that for the last five years, the accused has been commuting between the places to make his presence known, which has resulted in a great deal of time being wasted in wandering around and has thus not enabled the applicant to properly contest his cases.

The Court observed that a single transaction of enticing people to invest money by forming a company and then allegedly cheating/defrauding several people was the crux of all the cases filed against the plaintiff by different persons in different areas of Rajasthan. Therefore, it cannot be justified on the part of the State to subject the plaintiff to endless proceedings in different courts when the allegations were the same in every case.

Right to a speedy trial

The Court found that the right to a free and fair trial includes the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.

It was considered that the applicant was caught in a vicious circle in which the criminal proceedings themselves had become a punishment and that the detention of a person for such a long period without further proceedings did not constitute criminal prosecution within the meaning of the law.

It was also held that multiple FIRs leading to multiple investigations and trials on the same ground would prolong the process, which would be a violation of the fundamental rights of both the parties, especially when the content of the charge, the ground of the action and the nature of the evidence were the same.

“From the above facts and circumstances, it can be speculated or surmised that the completion of the trials against the accused/plaintiff in 259 cases would take about 50 years. The average life expectancy of a human being is generally 70 to 80 years. The plaintiff is currently already about 45 years old and has been behind bars for 5 years… Can a Constitutional Court allow an accused to die in prison while in the vicious cycle of criminal proceedings with no hope of a conclusion to the trial? No, never.”

The Court also stressed that there is a fundamental difference between prosecution and persecution, stating that as a constitutional court and guardian of the rule of law, it is its duty to ensure that the accused are prosecuted and not persecuted, since persecution is based on discrimination and bias which lead to unfair treatment.

“Prosecution involves bringing the accused to court where his guilt or innocence is determined on the basis of evidence. Prosecution can result in a range of human rights violations, including denial of freedom of expression. A fair prosecution is an essential part of the legal system that ensures justice and accountability… The complainant/accused is entitled to the rights guaranteed under the Indian Constitution, including the right of the accused to be protected from a harassing trial.”

Power of the Court to join cases

The court referred to Article 219 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which states that if a person is accused of committing three similar crimes within one year, all of these crimes can be charged and tried simultaneously. However, the court stressed that the provision limits such consolidation to a maximum of three cases and does not apply to situations where the number of cases exceeds three.

In the absence of such a provision, the Court relied on the doctrine of Ubi Jus Ibi Remedy It stipulates that in the event of a breach of a legal right, the law provides a remedy for the person concerned.

“Everyone, including the accused, has the right to a fair remedy before a competent court for acts violating his fundamental and human rights guaranteed to every citizen by the Indian Constitution.”

In addition, the court also referred to some cases in which the Supreme Court had consolidated cases. Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT DelhiThe Supreme Court has allowed the consolidation of overlapping cases, finding that a fair investigative process would require such consolidation and the transfer of cases to a single agency, rather than piecemeal investigations by a multitude of law enforcement agencies.

As well NV Sharma v. Union of India and Ors. The Supreme Court also stressed the importance of consolidating the cases and ordered the FIRs to be consolidated and forwarded to the Delhi Police for investigation.

In conclusion, the Court stated that the powers inherent in the High Courts under Article 482 of the British Constitution are linked to the expectation that the Court should do justice and that they are able to make such orders as are necessary to prevent abuse of judicial and legal process, even in the absence of any express statutory provision to that effect.

In the light of that analysis, the Court ordered that all cases against the applicant be grouped according to the geographical location of his residence in order to ensure a speedy and fair trial and to safeguard the objectives of justice.

The Court further observed that while it was aware of the potential inconvenience that such a case transfer would cause to various plaintiffs, when such inconvenience is compared with the defendant's right to adequately defend himself in over 250 cases, the balance of justice tips in favor of the defendant's right.

Accordingly, the petition was granted.

Title: Vikram Singh v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Quote: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj)

Click here to read/download the order