Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 376 (MP)

Narsingh Patidar v. State Of Madhya Pradesh

2025-07-01

BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI, VIVEK RUSIA

body2025
ORDER : Per : Justice Binod Kumar Dwivedi This petition under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 has been filed assailing the impugned order dated 22.04.2025 in SC (Lokayukt) No.02/2022 by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Mandsaur whereby the learned Judge has rejected the application of the applicant for joint trial of all the cases against the applicant/accused and had continued the trial separately. 02. Brief facts of the case as having emerged during trial are that the revenue authority upon investigation has found that the co-accused Bhanwarkunwar being Sarpanch and the present applicant Narsingh Patidar being Up-Sarpanch have granted 79 Pattas of plots out of which 44 plots have been given to outsiders not being residents of village-Ajijkhedi. It has been further stated that 19 plots have been given to those persons, who were already having houses in the names of their husband, father, father-in-law and others. Later on, the illegal Pattas granted by the applicant and co-accused were cancelled and the revision against the said cancellation order was also dismissed. Thereafter, 47 separate FIRs were registered by the respondents. 03. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the FIRs in respect of allotment of Pattas were made as per resolution dated 28.07.2007 and the resolution No.5 dated 20.02.2009 by which total 79 Pattas were allotted to different persons and the respondents have registered 47 separate FIRs with respect to them whereas it is arising from the same meetings of the Gram Panchayat and the entire investigation, statements, documents in all the FIRs registered are identical except the name of beneficiaries. The FIRs and final report in cases 7 cases out of 47 cases have been filed till date and every final report contains about 1500 to 2000 pages and in every case there are total 5 accused persons whereas the contents, statements and documents are completely identical only beneficiaries are different. 04. The FIRs and final report in cases 7 cases out of 47 cases have been filed till date and every final report contains about 1500 to 2000 pages and in every case there are total 5 accused persons whereas the contents, statements and documents are completely identical only beneficiaries are different. 04. It has been further submitted that the applicant is also forced to appear in 47 different cases and to face trial in 47 different cases whereas the cause of action is same and this will further lead to wastage of the valuable time of the learned trial Court as the evidence which is required to be recorded is common in all cases, hence all the FIRs can be consolidated and clubbed with the first FIR No. 311/2015 registered at P.S. Special Police Establishment, Lokayukta Office Ujjain. It is further submitted that a just balance between the fundamental rights of the citizens under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution and the extensive power of the police to investigate a cognizable offence has to be maintained. It is submitted that the sweeping power of investigation does not warrant subjecting a citizen each time to fresh investigation by the police in respect of the same incident, giving rise to one or more cognizable offences. It would clearly be beyond the purview of Sections 154 and 156 Cr.P.C. and in fact, the same would be a case of abuse of the statutory power of investigation in a given case. Therefore, it is requested to issue directions to consolidate all these cases in F.I.R. No.311/2015. 05. Learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned order and submits that no illegality has been committed by the learned trial Court in dismissing the application for joint trial filed on behalf of the applicant, therefore, prays for dismissal of the petition. 06. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 07. Section 220 of Cr.P.C. reads as under:- 220. Trial for more than one offence. (1) If, in one series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction, more offences than one are committed by the same person, he may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, every such offence. 07. Section 220 of Cr.P.C. reads as under:- 220. Trial for more than one offence. (1) If, in one series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction, more offences than one are committed by the same person, he may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, every such offence. (2) When a person charged with one or more offences of criminal breach of trust or dishonest misappropriation of property as provided in sub- section (2) of section 212 or in sub- section (1) of section 219, is accused of committing, for the purpose of facilitating or concealing the commission of that offence or those offences, one or more offences of falsification of accounts, he may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, every such offence. (3) If the acts alleged constitute an offence falling within two or more separate definitions of any law in force for the time being by which offences are defined or punished, the person accused of them may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, each of such offences. (4) If several acts, of which one or more than one would by itself or themselves constitute an offence, constitute when combined a different offence, the person accused of them may be charged with, and tried at one trial for the offence constituted by such acts when combined, and for any offence constituted by any one, or more, of such acts. (5) Nothing contained in this section shall affect section 71 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860 ). 08. From bare perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is apparent that it is not mandatory that more than one case filed against the applicant/accused will be tried jointly in each case. Undisputedly, in the present case 47 FIRs have been registered for different offences though of similar nature. Pattas were allotted to different persons and the applicant has admitted that beneficiaries are different in each and every case. Allotment of each of the patta constituted separate offence and beneficiary who is involved in the criminal conspiracy and fraud are different in each case. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that all the FIRs belong to the same offence. By mere facts that the applicant is same, joint trial cannot be ordered looking to the aforesaid fact that properties and beneficiaries are different. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that all the FIRs belong to the same offence. By mere facts that the applicant is same, joint trial cannot be ordered looking to the aforesaid fact that properties and beneficiaries are different. This question came up before this Court in Writ Petition No. 25383/2022 wherein vide order dated 01.07.2023 same view was taken. When the aforesaid order was challenged before the Apex Court in SLP (Crl.) No(s). 2235/2024 (Nar Singh Patidar vs. Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment & Ors.) , the Apex Court taking into consideration the provisions as enshrined in Section 219 & 223 of the Cr.P.C. has observed as under:- “6. We have gone through the provisions of law as placed before us as well as the judgments cited in their favour by the learned respective counsels. The sum and substance of the case herein is whether there has to be a joint trial or separate trials. This, however, has to be decided first by the trial court itself where the proceedings are pending. Theoretically yes, a joint trial in such cases is permissible, but the decision in the first instance has to be taken by the Trial Court concerned. The High Court too has taken a view with which we are presently not in disagreement as it is a possible view, but this question has to be first decided by the Trial Court itself. 7. In view of the above and particularly in view of judgment in the case State of Jharkhand vs. Lalu Prasad Yadav (2017)8 SCC 1 , we dispose of the appeal leaving it open to the Trial Court to take a call on this and dispose of the matter expeditiously, and to that extent and for the limited reasons stated above the High Court’s order is set aside. In case charges have been framed and trial has begun, it should proceed in letter and spirit of the provisions under section 309 of Cr. P.C.” 09. In the light of aforesaid observation by the Apex Court, this petition is disposed off with a direction to the trial Court that at the appropriate stage, it will be decided by it whether joint trial, as prayed by the applicant is convenient and permissible, in accordance with the law, if so the court may suo motu take futher steps in this regard. Accordingly, the petition is disposed off.