Multiplicity Of Proceedings Not In Larger Public Interest: SC Partly Allows A Plea Seeking Consolidation Of FIRs
|The Supreme Court partly allowed a plea seeking consolidation of FIRs saying that the multiplicity of proceedings is not in the larger public interest.
The Court was dealing with a writ petition seeking to consolidate or club all the FIRs registered against a man in different States at various police stations to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Guna, Madhya Pradesh.
The two-Judge Bench of Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Aravind Kumar observed, “Learned standing counsel appearing for the State of Madhya Pradesh has expressed no objection if these cases are consolidated and listed before one court having jurisdiction. Hence, following the principles laid down in Amish Devgan v. Union of India and others (2021) 1 SCC 1 we deem it appropriate to exercise power conferred under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to accede to the relief claimed to the extent of consolidation of the FIRs registered in the State of Madhya Pradesh for being tried together as one trial as far as possible, as we are of the opinion that multiplicity of the proceedings will not be in the larger public interest and State also.”
Advocate Chandra Prakash appeared for the petitioner while Advocates Yashraj Singh Bundela and Pragya Baghel appeared for the respondents.
In this case, the counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner being aged 60 years, was foisted with several cases in the States of Madhya Pradesh, Karnataka and Jharkhand for similar offences and he was never appointed as the Director of the company named G. Life India Developers and Colonizers Limited. It was further contended that the prosecution initiated, was in relation to the fraud/scam committed by the company and petitioner was in way concerned with the same.
It was also contended, for the purposes of speedy and fair trial and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings that, it would be in the best interest of all that the cases pending in various States be consolidated and posted to the court of a competent jurisdiction at Guna, Madhya Pradesh. Hence, relying upon some judgments, the counsel prayed that the petition be allowed.
The Supreme Court after hearing the contentions of the counsel said, “It is clarified that all the cases pending in the State of Madhya Pradesh shall be transferred to the District of Devas, Madhya Pradesh where FIR No.324 of 2017 has been filed and registered against the petitioner or in other words, FIR Nos.266 of 2018, 479 of 2018 and 283 of 2020 shall stand transferred to the District of Devas where FIR No.324 of 2017 is pending.”
Furthermore, the Court directed that the jurisdictional courts shall take immediate steps to transfer the proceedings for being consolidated and adjudicated by one trial to be decided on its own merits. However, the Court rejected the prayer for transfer of pending cases in Karnataka and Jharkhand States to the Madhya Pradesh State.
Accordingly, the Apex Court disposed of the writ petition.
Cause Title- Amanat Ali v. State of Karnataka and Others (Neutral Citation: 2023 INSC 1060)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Vivek Singh, C.P. Rajwar, Somi Sharma, Binay Kumar, Ramesh Kumar, and Lav Kumar Agarwal.
Respondents: AOR D. L. Chidananda, Advocates Pawan and Jyoti Verma, AOR Gopal Jha, and AOR Pallavi Langar.