24. The High Court, in exercise of its powers under Section 482 of the Code, cannot undertake a detailed examination of the facts 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.
25. In our considered opinion, 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 absurdity in the allegations or when facts disclose prima facie cognizable case and also disclose remarkable identity between the two FIRs as if the first FIR is filed second time with no change in allegations then the Court may, in appropriate case, consider it proper to quash the second FIR. Such is not the case here.
30. Learned counsel for the respondents (accused) however, vehemently tried to support the impugned judgment and took us through the entire factual allegations of all six FIRs. It was his submission that on perusal of the impugned FIRs, there does exist overlapping of the offences in the FIRs on identical allegations with no change in any of the six FIRs except repetition of the words and hence the High Court was right in quashing the five FIRs.
31. We are afraid to accept this submission of learned counsel for the respondents (accused). Having noticed few significant distinguishing features in six FIRs mentioned above, the submission has no merit.
32. In view of foregoing discussion, we cannot concur with the reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the High Court in the impugned judgment. The appeals thus succeed and are allowed. The impugned judgment is set aside.
33. It is held that all the six FIRs filed against the respondents (accused persons) are legal and proper and each have to be given effect for making proper and full investigation in relation to the offences alleged in each FIR. The Investigating Officer would now speed up the investigation in relation to the affairs of each Co-operative Society and on its completion file charge-sheet in each case in accordance with law in a competent Court.
SIX FIRS – SIX CASES – SAME COURT – TRIES AS ONE CASE:
34. Needless to say that when all the six cases are filed in the concerned Courts, they would be clubbed together and tried by one competent Court in accordance with law.
PARTY: Chirag M. Pathak & Ors. Etc vs. Dollyben Kantilal & Ors – CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.1947-1956 OF 2017 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (Crl) Nos.1218-1227/2014) – 15-11-2017.
