Holding

The High Court was not justified in quashing the five FIRs; all six FIRs are legal and proper and must be investigated separately.

Summary

Six FIRs were lodged in different police stations in Gujarat against five cooperative housing societies and the accused family members for alleged offences under the IPC. The accused filed criminal applications under Section 482 of the CrPC in the Gujarat High Court, which quashed five of the FIRs on the ground that they overlapped with the first FIR. The appellants challenged this order before the Supreme Court, arguing that each FIR pertained to distinct societies with different members, lands, transactions, and alleged conspiracies, and therefore each warranted a separate investigation. The Supreme Court held that the High Court had no justification to quash the FIRs, as the inherent powers under Section 482 are to be exercised only when an FIR is frivolous, absurd or shows no prima facie cognizable offence, which was not the case here. Consequently, all six FIRs were declared legal and proper, the High Court’s order was set aside, and the criminal applications were dismissed, leaving the investigations to proceed separately with a possibility of later clubbing of cases.

Issues considered

The scope and proper exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to quash FIRs.
Whether the five FIRs, apart from the first, were merely repetitions and could be merged with the first FIR.
Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the FIRs at the investigation stage.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 482

Subjects

Section 482inherent powers of courtFIR quashingmultiple FIRscooperative housing societiesinvestigationcriminal procedureSupreme CourtHigh Court

Judgment

[2017] 14 S.C.R. 424

A CHIRAG M. PATHAK & ORS. ETC.ETC.
v.
DOLLYBEN KANTILAL & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 1947-1956 of2017)
B 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]
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
H
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 c
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
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
.accomplished, who were parties to it, who were those persons E
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 F
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
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 REPORTS [2017] 14 S.C.R.

A absurdity in the allegations or when facts disclose prima facie
cognizable ease 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.
[Paras 24, 25) [434-A-C)
B
1.5 All the six FJRs 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
C 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. 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. The
parties are at liberty, at an appropriate stage, to move to the
D High Court with a prayer to club and then transfer all the six
cases to one competent Court. The High Court would accordingly
pass appropriate orders of clubbing and transferring all the six
eases to one Court as it may deem fit and proper to enable the
said Court to dispose of all the six cases in accordance with law.
[Paras 33-35)(435-F-H; 436-A-B)
E
State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Swapan Kumar Guha &
Ors. AIR 1982 SC 949 : IJ 982) 3 SCR 121 - relied
on.
Case I,aw Reference
F [1982) 3 SCR 121 relied on Para 27
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
Nos.1947-1956of2017.
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.10.2013 of the High Court
of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Special Criminal Application Nos. 1265,
G 1266, 1267, 1268, 1269,2930,2931,2932,2933and2934of2013.
WITH
SLP (Cr!.) Nos. 869-878 of2014.
HuzefaAhmadi, Sr. Adv., Varinder Kumar Sharma, Rohan Sharma,
Ms. Shahrukh Alam, Ad vs. for the Appellant.
H
CHIRAG M. PATHAK v. DOLLYBEN KANTJLAL 427

Mohit Chaudhary, Ms. Puja Sharma, Kuna! Sachdeva, Balwinder A
Singh Suri, Ms. Garima Sharma, Mis. Lawyer S. Knit & Co., Ms. Puja
Singh, Ms. Shodhika Sharma, Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Advs. for the
Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. I. Leave granted. B

2. These appeals are filed by appellants against the common
judgment dated 17 .10.2013 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at
Ahmedabad in Special Criminal Application Nos.1265, 1266, 1267, 1268,
1269~ 2930, 2931, 2932, 2933 and 2934 of2013 whereby the High Court
allowed the applications filed by the respondents herein under Section C
482 of Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to
as "the Code") and quashed the five First Information Report (in short
"the FIR") Nos.50/2013, 51/2013, 52/2013, 53/2013 and 54/2013 dated
19'h February, 2013.
3. Facts of the case and the issues involved in these appeals are D
. short. They, however, need mention hercinbelow to appreciate the
controversy.
4. Six FIRs were registered in different Police Stations in the
State of Gujarat against five different Co-Operative Housing Societies
for commission of various offences alleged to have been committed by E
the President, Office Bearers and other persons of the five Societies
under Sections 406, 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471,120-B and 477-A of the
Indian Penal Code, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "IPC"). The details
of these six FIRs are as under:
F
Sr. No. Datt & N1tllle&Regn. Survey No. & P<tiod & Place Name of a:cruscd Nllnco.tvictnns
FIR l'o. of.Society Village ofoffe""

l CR l-5;2012 Ba.la5invr S. No.320.320•1, Since 1984 to Kmtila!Ambalal RAD.jitrai-Joshi
dated Society- Plot 329,JJ2Villat- iill2L\12 Patel, Dollyben'
21.5.2012 No.A7tGH- Pipilliya KantiW Patti,
.registered \1136 AshokDes~bhai
\\1th Gandhi Patel, Sachin G
NagarCID RajcndraPatel,
Crime PS fumh
Shasirikant Patel,
Jashbh~
Shankci'bhai
Pate:!
428 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 14 S.C.R.

A 2 qu. ·Bola!mor S.l>oJW, 20:7.llt~ ~· Ksll<hmW Bbott,
l0!2!113 ScdeiyGH- 320/1,329, 2U.ll'at60, .Ambalal Pl!<!!, Aivind Kir..chm:lal
dhi lll36 332\I~ Vilnal Dollybm Bhott,VmtR,
19.2.2013 Pi~ya ~~ KmtilalPll<!l, Chav;!i.l.nc!i....
~11a!d "--J,14; ·~ HaP.sl! R4ilal Ac!hiY,I,
v.{tli 426, "!-.lilt. Sha!bllamt Mbj~Jlnilld'
~!Wqrn •PS,}'JW l1l!llM Sh!!h,
P.S. ,Rmeilimm ~Sl:!\!lh
B Vs!od.!ra ci...aublm, KllmM I>adi.;,.
JaihbhJi Jawantbhai
slml.-,,-l>liai KodsiW Jllril:h,
P.sttl L'nwN'l'in
Chlridm Ka:h.riya
Ravjibhoi A. Pa!!!,
BipiDC~A.
c Paiel,Pmxit
Ambolll Pl!el,
Nrmh l'UlllMC.
P11el,~A
\'ya!, R!tilol A.
Pctd, Suln! l,,_
PA!lil:ll!iln
J<thm.a!-31ll,Rekha
D S.Pata

:3 C.R.!· Vsll.-.$w::r S.h"o.4.S.&47 li~7.ll lo Koniilill Dh!monjay
51/:WIJllt. SocieyGH- Villqe 29.9.l! 1160, Amblllll'ml, \'~Pai.I,
Vima! . . .
l~..2.B ·11133 ~. Dollyb!sl Jayoben A. Pa!el,
~·t.mc! Atta-49,~ Sod<ly, !CmtililP!l!l, Meya:k N. Pa.I,
'l'itll "!-Jn!, ~ Sachin Ni~lll.1:1lly
MQ:pw:a 'Rlii!r!dii. Bh!tt,Dipo
E P.S. ~ K-iiyo,
Vldcda c~ Jayv..ni'l>m
Jllhllhlli s...m!Si vaari
.Shsil.-.r4>liei ~Ratilal
Potel Sh.oh,Ja}'!hie
SU!Wchsz:dm
Shoh;Amit!l
Piy111hbb>iPm:lJ.:l!.
F p~
Mmojblloi Mehta,
Bach'ObbboiA.
P.atel, Hmah B,
Blol:m4lllan,
M1lk6li, C Piia,
KclilJ!A. !>a:.!,
itljf>h'M. Pm!,
G Babu-bhai S.Pzt<I,
Anillilllhli
P.Aniin,
Pmblllbhel.
bhw:!!bhoi P.,.J.,
Bipin-<hmdts
Aml"'1al Pa!el
H
CHIRAG M. PATHAK v. .DOLLYBEN KANTILAL 429
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

4 C.Rl· PMllSociety s.~o:54 13.7.11 to· 'K2nt~21 'Preml:umar A
51'2013 dt GH-11134 Yillage. ·29.9Jlat · AmbaWPatd, h!!ltam
...
19.~.13 K2mbpura. 60,Vinul ·D.ollyben · Jelhmalmi;.
it!ist~~ Ar~69,106 Socitly, Kmtilal P2tt1, Hmsabtil V.
mlh sq.ml MW!pura Jit~dra Slushi- Thaklur,
M;Dn>~ bntPatd VldyabmN,P2teJ;
P.S. Bhmuben C~pabenS.
V~od4n K2nt~al Patel Patel,-~uieshbh~
B
.Iadtbhai A.yyasS~-
S~bltai b}J.aiA. P2W,
. P~tel Bill:rushm~
. M..
~~~a,N~a4c-
ben M: Patti,
S:uojben G~~el, c
Anindbh.ai.M..
Sluh
.) C.Rl- :\lbpuri 'S;No-~t.',~S 11:7.11 to:· -~til.ol 'l<Dki11·~iri1h .
53.1013-dt S!Xjtt}Gif: '&,49 19.9.1ht. :Anib.W
• .• •
Patti'I
.• • ~ 1Iodi,~~ -
191.13 11135 Villi.£e :6o,.vmii.D~Ilj'k~ DioeshBhahi'al~
.... ' .....
f~ed
~ :

K:mlipur.a ·soael\...
• • I =~tiWP~~. J:~~du~l
.·
~ Area- ' ' _M;Qplira :A!hol:bhai Kap2dia;
D
Mal:rpur2 94~sq.
P.S.
' Des:i'bki Vmodm'i
ml ' -~B.h:m~e~r Kapw,Gaut~
V2lod2:1
As:hokblui K.:"Pad~ Anjma
-~d,'Ju~b~ ~.Padil,
'Shzk!fbh3i .... - , Bh~
.:Pctel, Clmidu: .Blmls2li,.GiriSb
. ..._ . E
bh2i Dosh~~Asuh
'
S~ali, Sur~Jh:
Kantrbl s~
~·~iibh:ai,
valliQhblul
Patel,V~bh-
bhliTnbhu~~.. F
blWPat~,
VinubluiB:
~~~~~~-
b~Pat~,
JuhbluiR.nji1
bh2iPattl;
Chaudubh2iB; G
Patt}.IUJhmi-·
bo!S.?~; .
CbmdGhntS:
._ P~K2sturb!W
\buubluiP:id
H
430 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017) 14 S.C.R.

A
6 c.R.!· Khmwadi S.No.50, 51. 25.7.ll to KantiW RiraC
5412013 Society 52A,52B 29.9-11 at Ambalal Patel, Kapadia, Vana
dt.19.2.13 GH,11486 Village 60. \ilJllal Dollybm Killin
r<gistaed Kun1apura Society; Kantilal Paid, Ghatali:i.,
wlth Artt-96,519 Makaqiura Kishorc N Vaishali
MakaipUn sq. D11. Blutt,Dilip Ghatalia,
P.S. Manibhai Pato!, KundmDolhi.
B Vadodara fohbhai 1aimit Doshi,
Shankcrbhai Upcndra
Patel Ashabhai
Pat<!,
Bipinbhai
Chotabhai
Pat<!, Dahya-
c bhaiB.Pat<l,
Kfranbhai J.
Parlldi,
Arvind-bhai
Chotabhai
Patd.,
Manubhai
D Chotabhai
Patti, llµiesh ..
bhai Shana·
bbai, Har•had-
bhai Mudji-
bhai, Sbakunt-
lab&
E J..anbhai

5. The accused (respondent Nos.l, 2 and 3 herein, who are
members of one family), felt aggrieved by the registration of above-
mentioned five FIRs (item 2 to 6) which had implicated them for
F commission of several offences, filed Criminal Applications under Section
482 of the Code in the High Court of Gujarat and sought quashing of the
above-mentioned five FlRs.
6. The challenge was essentially founded on the ground that filing
of the first FIR{lCr. No.5/2012 dated 21.05.2012) appearing at S.No. l
G above takes care of remaining five F!Rs and, therefore, the remaining
five F!Rs are wholly uncalled for and should not have been registered
inasmuch as the five FIRs are nothing but repetition of the first FIR and
hence all the five FIRs deserve to be quashed.
7. In other words, the contention of the accused persons before
the High Court was that the subsequent registration of five FIRs after
H
CHIRAG M. PATHAK v.. DOLLYBEN KANTILAL 431
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

registration of first one was nothing but repetition of first FIR inasmuch A
as all the five FIRs are founded on the same allegations, which are part
of the first FIR and, therefore, accused persons cannot be subjected to
suffer five more prosecution cases in relation to the same offences on
the strength of five FIRs once they are made to suffer the prosecution in
relation to offences on the strength of first FIR.
B
8. It was urged that once the investigation in respect of first FIR
is over and charge-sheet pursuant thereto is filed in the concerned Court,
it would take care of remaining five FIRs and it is for this reason the
remaining five FIRs are wholly uncalled for.
9. The State opposed the Criminal Applications. It was, inter alia. · c
contended that having regard to the nature of allegations made in each
FIR in relation to the commission of the several offences, no case is
made out to quash any FIR out of five and, therefore, all the six FIRs
must be allowed to be investigated independently of one another. After
completion of the investigation, charge-sheets are allowed to be filed in
each case against all the accused persons involved in the scam in D
accordance with law so that each case is brought to its logical end in the
Court oflaw against all the accused persons. ·
10. The High Court found merit in the contention of the accused
persons and, by impugnedjudgment, allowed their Criminal Applications
and while quashing the five FIRs passed the following directions in the E
impugned order:
"In the light of the above discussion, the petitions succeed
and are accordingly allowed. The first information reports
registered vide Makarpura Police Station 1-CR.No.50/
2013, 51/2013, 52/2013, 53/2013 and 54i2013 dated 19'h F
February, 2013 are hereby· quashed and set aside. As a
consequence thereof, the investigation carried out pursuant
to the second first information reports, shall be treated as
part of the investigation carried out in respect of the 1"
first information report and the entire record of the 0
subsequent first information reports shall be forwarded to
the Investigating Officer of the 1'' first information report;
who shall consider the same and c~rry out investigation in
respect of the detailed allegations 'made therein. Rule is
made absolute accordingly."
H
432 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 14 S.C.R.

A 11. The appellants herein are the members of these Societies.
They claim to be the victims of several illegal activities alleged to have
been committed by the accused persons (respondents herein) in the affairs
of the Societies and, particularly, those committed in relation to sale of
the lands belonging to the Societies, siphoning off the funds of the
B Societies, falsification of the accounts of the Societies etc.
12. The appellants, felt aggrieved of the impugned judgment, which
resulted in quashing of 5 FIRs, have filed these appeals by way ofspecial
leave before this Court.
13. Heard Mr. Huzefa Ahmadi, learned senior counsel for the
C appellants and Mr. Mohit Choudhary, learned counsel for the respondents.
14. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal
of ihe record of the case, we are constrained to allow the appeals, set
aside the impugned judgment and dismiss the Criminal Applications filed
by the accused persons (respondents herein) under Section 482 of the
Code out of which these appeals arise.
D
15. The short question which arises for consideration in these
appeals is whether the High Court was justified in quashing the five
FIRs appearing at S.Nos. 2 to 6 extracted above.
16. We have perused all the six FIRs with a view to find out as to
whether the grievance urged by the accused persons is made out on
E facts or not. Having perused, we find ourselves unable to agree with the
reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the High Court, which led to
quashing of the five FIRs.
17. We, however, do not consider it proper to give our detailed
reasoning as it may cause prejudice to all parties concerned because the
F investigation is not yet complete and the trial in the first FIR has not yet
started except to observe that there appeared no justifiable reason for
the High Court to quash the five FIRs by taking recourse to the inherent
powers under Section 482 of the Code.
18. We find thatthe High Court had labored hard when it devoted
G 46 pages in examining the factual issues involved in six cases, appreciated
the allegations ofFIRs like an Appellate Court to some extent and then
reached to a conclusion that all the six FIRs were based on identical
facts and the allegations contained therein overlap and, therefore, the
first FIR alone will survive for investigation whereas remaining fore FIRs
would not survive and merge in the first FIR.
H

•
CHIRAG M. PATHAK v. DOLLYBEN KANTILAL 433
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

19. We do not agree with the manner, reasoning and the.conclusion A
arrived at by the High Court in the impugned judgment.
20. We find that 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 lands which were
sold/transferred are a!So situated in different areas, the lands were also B
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.
21. In short, having regard to the totality of the factual allegations
made for constituting the commission of several offences in relation to c
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.
22. There may be some overlapping allegations in the FlRs but
that is due to myriad reasons and one reason could be that all the Co- D
operative Societies were engaged in the same business of sale/purchase
of housing and the plots ofland which were sold to different persons in
different areas by same accused persons due to their involvement in the
affairs of all Co-Operative Societies. However, these facts were not by
themselves sufficient to quash the five FIRs at the stage of investigation
itself. · E
23. In our view, 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
accomplished, who were parties to it, who were those persons who
secured fin~cial benefits, what was the modus operandi for mis- F
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 fonn part of the separate
charge-sheet for being proved with the aid of evidence in a competent G
Court against each Society and persons involved in the scam. It is for
the Court to examine the factual issues arising in every case by
appreciating the eYidence once adduced in support thereof and pass
appropriate orders in accordance with law.

H
434 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 14 S.C.R.

A 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 Fffis by acting as an Appellate Court and draws its own
conclusion. It is more so when investigation in other Societies is not yet
complete.
B 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 primafacie cognizable case and also
disclose remarkable identity between the two FIRs as if the first Fffi is
filed second time with no change in allegations then the Court may, in
c appropriate case, consider it proper to quash the second Fffi. Such is
not the case here.
26. Indeed, in our view, (cw distinguishing factual allegations
mentioned above are enough to repel the challenge made by the accused
persons to the impugned FIRs and the same should have been made
D basis to dismiss the Criminal Applications of the accused persons.
27. We may, at this stage, apposite to mention a Three Judge
Bench decision of this Court in State of West Bengal & Ors. vs.
Swapan Kumar Guha & Ors. (AIR 1982 SC 949) wherein this Court
examined somewhat a similar question in the context of the powers of
E the Court.
28. The learned ChiefJustice, Y.V Chandrachud and JusticeA.N.
Sen, speaking for the Bench in their concurring opinion held as under:
"Whether an offence has been disclosed or not must
F necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each
particular case. If on a consideration of the relevant
materials, the Court is satisfied that an offence is disclosed,
the Court will normally not interfere with the investigation
into the offence and will generally allow the investigation
in the offence to be completed for collecting materials for
G proving the offence.
The condition precedent to the commencement of
investigation under S.157 of the Code is that the F.I.R. must
disclose, prima facie, that a cognizable offence has been
committed. It is wrong to suppose that the police have an
H
CHIRAG M. PATHAK v. DOLLYBEN KANTILAL 435
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

unfettered discretion to commence investigation under A
S.157 of the Code. Their right of inquiry is conditioned by
the existence of reason to suspect the commission of a
cognizable offence and they cannot, reasonably, have reason
so to suspect unless the F.I.R., prima facie, discloses the
commission of such offence. If that condition is satisfied,
B
the investigation must go on. The Court has then no power
to stop the investigation, for to do so would be to trench
upon the lawful power of the police to investigate into
cognizable offences."
29. We apply the aforesaid principle which, in our opinion, applies
to the facts of the case on hand and accordingly decline to quash the c
impugned FIRs.
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 D
offences in the FIRs on identical allegations with no change in any of the
six FlRs 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 oflearned counsel for
the respondents (accused). Having noticed few significant distinguishing E
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. F
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 G
on its completion file charge-sheet in each case in accordance with law
in a competent Court.
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
H
436 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017) 14 S.C.R.

A competent Court in accordance with law.
35. The parties are at liberty, at an appropriate stage, to move to
the High Court with a prayer to club and then transfer all the six cases to
one competent Court. The High Court would accordingly pass appropriate
orders of clubbing and transferring all the six cases to one Court as it
B may de.em fit and proper to enable the said Court to dispose of all the six
cases in accordance with law.
Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos.869-878 of 2014
In view of the above judgment rendered in appeals arising out of
S.L.P.(Crl.)Nos.1218-1227 of 2014, these special leave petitions are
C disposed of.

Divy a Pandey Matters disposed of.