BIMAL DASHRATHBHAI PARIKH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition, under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India read with Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 197, is preferred by the applicant ' original accused for direction :- (i) to prosecute the petitioner only under one prosecution treating the first FIR registered with the DCB Police Station, Ahmedabad City on 7/8/2023 and the charge-sheet filed thereunder, which is culminated into Criminal Case No.115700 of 2023 and all other charge-sheets / FIRs be treated as supplementary charge-sheet, (ii) to restrain the trial Court from framing the charge in connection with Criminal Cases No.115700 of 2023 and 7482 of 2024 pending before the 11th Additional Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Ahmedabad, Criminal Case No.122886 of 2023 pending before the 9th Additional Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Ahmedabad, (iii) to restrain the Investigating Officer in connection with the C.R. No.11191005230229 of 2023 registered with the Khadia Police Station, Ahmedabad from filing the charge-sheet before the competent Court and (iv) to restrain the learned trial Court from framing the charge in connection with Criminal Case No.61860 of 2024 pending before the 41th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmedabad City.

(2.) Heard learned advocates.

(3.) Learned senior advocate Mr. N.D. Nanavati with learned advocate Mr. Hriday Buch for learned advocate Mr.Nilay Patel for the petitioner has submitted that the FIRs in question, of the year 2023, are identical and the offences allegedly are also the same; and that in most of the FIRs, charge-sheets have been filed; and that the trial Court is also the same i.e. Metropolitan Magistrate Courts at Ahmedabad; and that the petitioner cannot be made to suffer different prosecutions on identical allegations; and that the loan transactions in question are of the year 2019 when the petitioner was the Chairman and the borrowers of the Colour Merchant Cooperative Bank have lodged the FIRs who have failed to repay the loan, that too after the bank initiates the proceedings for recovery in the year 2020-21; and that no further overt is attributed to the petitioner; and that the petitioner has not derived any monetary benefit out of the said loan transactions in question; and that the petitioner cannot be made to face identical prosecution; and that continuation with all the FIRs, charge-sheet and trials would amount to abuse of the statutory powers of investigation; and that it is a settle legal position that administrating criminal justice is two end process. The rights of the accused are to be guarded under the Constitution with the same zeal as ensuring justice to the victim; and that it is the duty of the Court to balance between the rights of the accused and wide power of the police to investigate a cognizable offence.