1. Present petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India assails FIR bearing Crime No.295/2020 registered at P.S. Govindgarh, District Rewa, FIR bearing Crime No.316/2020 registered at P.S. Semariya, District Rewa and FIR bearing Crime No.317/2020 registered at P.S. Semariya, District Rewa on the ground that on the same set of transaction, which is foundation of these three FIRs, earlier FIR bearing Crime No.12/2015 at P.S. Dabhora, District Rewa is already registered. Challenge is also made by way of amendment to the subsequent criminal proceedings, which have been registered after filing of charge sheet by the police pursuant to aforesaid three FIRs.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the main accused Ram Krishna Mishra, the then Branch Manager of the complainant Cooperative Bank along with other employees of the Bank including the petitioner get multiple accounts opened in the name of several persons including his real brother and other close relatives and thereafter using his confidential ID and password, transferred huge amounts from the ‘Sundry’ and ‘Adjustment’ accounts of the Bank to their accounts and used them for his personal gain. The amount was not only transferred from his own Branch but also from the other Branches viz Semariya, Bida, Gobindgarh Branches of the Bank. To achieve this object, he and his associates/co-accused persons created several forged documents. Accordingly, an FIR bearing Crime No.12/2015 relating to offence under Section 409, 420, 467, 468, 471/34, 201 and 120-B of IPC was registered at Police Station Dabhora District Rewa. The investigation in Crime No.12/2015 registered at Police Station Dabhora was transferred to Crime Branch, CID and investigating officer filed charge sheet No.03/2016 before learned CJM District Rewa stating therein that the investigation is complete except investigation with regard to offence registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

3. During the investigation, it emerged that there are several other transactions wherein the money of bank of different branches viz. Govindgarh, Deeda & Semariya was defalcated by siphoning them in several accounts through several transactions, total amount defalcated was found to be Rs.16 Crores and 50 Lakhs. For several such transactions, the police further registered FIRs being (i) In respect of Dabhora Branch, Crime No.295/2016 for the offence under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 120-B, 201 of IPC and Section 13(1)(a) and 13(1)(b) of the PC Act at Police Station Govindgarh, (ii) In respect of Beeda Branch, FIR No.316/2020 for the offence under Section 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 120-B, 201 of IPC and Section 13(1)(a) and 13(1)(b) of the PC Act at Police Station Semariya, (iii) In respect of Semariya Branch, FIR No.317/2020 for the offence under Section 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 120-B, 201 of IPC and Section 13(1)(a) and 13(1)(b) of the PC Act at Police Station Semaria and (iv) In respect of Civil Lines Branch, FIR No.1/2021 for the offence under Section 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 34, 120-B, 201 IPC and Section 13(1)(a), 13(1)(b) and 13(2), 13(1)(c) and 13(1) (d) of the PC Act at Police Station Sirmor District Rewa.

4. The petitioner has challenged multiple FIR’s being lodged against him contending that without considering the earlier FIR No.12/2015 which has culminated into charge sheet bearing No.3/2016 dated 29.01.2016, these FIRs have been registered.

5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the subsequent FIR’s are nothing but the part of same investigation as all the contents are identical and under such circumstances all the subsequent FIR’s viz. FIR No.295 dated 16.09.2020, FIR No.316 dated 19.09.2020, FIR No.317 dated 19.09.2020 and FIR No.01 dated 02.01.2021 may be treated as supplementary charge sheet in FIR No.12/2015.

6. It is also the contention of the petitioner that lodging of multiple FIRs for the same transactions is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. An incident giving rise to one or more cognizable offence consequent upon filing of successive offence, whether before or after filing challan, under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. is beyond the scope of the provisions of Cr.P.C. and thus, is an abuse of statutory provisions of investigation. The next contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner has not been assigned any specific role in subsequent FIRs. It is also contended that registration of multiple FIR’s against the petitioner for the very same incident is arbitrary and irrational.

7. To support his contention that subsequent FIRs after filing of charge sheet are impermissible under the same set of facts, he has relied upon the judgment of Apex Court in the case of T. T. Antony v. State of Kerala: (2001) 6 SCC 181 [LQ/SC/2001/1369] and Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. CBI: (2013) 6 SCC 348 [LQ/SC/2013/382] wherein it is held :

“This Court has consistently laid down the law on the issue interpreting the Code, that a second FIR in respect of an offence or different offences committed in the course of the same transaction is not only impermissible but it violates Article 21 of the Constitution. …. Thus, there can be no second FIR and consequently, there can be no fresh investigation on receipt of every subsequent information in respect of the same cognizable offence or the same occurrence or incident giving rise to one or more cognizable offences.'

8. The averment of the petitioner is that all the FIRs are by the same persons, against the same accused persons, based on the same set of facts and contain the same allegations, therefore, the subsequent FIR are unwarranted, contrary to the settled principles of law, amounts to double jeopardy, generate a multiplicity of proceedings and complications, neither legal nor proper, hence, deserve to be quashed.

9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the intervenor has submitted that the impugned FIRs contain different allegations then the FIR in Crime No.12/2015. The allegations levelled in FIR No.12/2015 are different from the allegations in the impugned FIRs, the offences are distinct and relate to different places and persons; therefore, the impugned FIRs are maintainable in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

10. We have heard learned counsels for the rival parties and perused the record carefully.

11. The question is whether registration of subsequent FIRs for different offences of embezzlement occurred at different places, though the accused persons are same, can be considered as one and the same incident or amount to an offence committed in the same transaction or is a part of the same transaction.

12. Of late, this Court has dwelt with the aforesaid question in MCrC No.35980/2022 (Manoj Parmar vs State of M.P. & anr.), wherein while dismissing the petition, it has been held:

“There can be no dispute that each wrong/ forgery/ cheating/ embezzlement/ defalcation etc. committed by a person constitutes a distinct and independent offence (Narinderjit Singh Sahni vs. Union of India (2002) 2 SCC 210 [LQ/SC/2001/2353] and State of Jharkhand vs. Lalu Prasad (2017) 8 SCC 1 [LQ/SC/2017/787] followed). Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner is being prosecuted by the CBI for the same offence he is being prosecuted by the Police of P.S.Ashta, District Sehore.”

13. In Narinderjit Singh Sahni (supra) the Supreme Court, in clear terms, stated that each such offence is a distinct one, and cannot be regarded as constituting a single series of acts/transaction. Para 60 of the judgment reads thus:

“60. As regards the issue of a single offence, we are afraid that the fact situation of the matters under consideration would not permit to lend any credence to such a submission. Each individual deposit agreement shall have to be treated as a separate and individual transaction brought about by the allurement of the financial companies, since the parties are different; the amount of deposit is different as also the period for which the deposit was effected. It has all the characteristics of independent transactions and we do not see any compelling reason to hold it otherwise. The plea as raised also cannot have our concurrence.”

14. In view of the above proposition of law, subsequent FIRs cannot be considered as same transaction or a part of a same transaction for different offences. In the case in hand, the money has been siphoned by several transactions from several branches of the bank. Each such transaction constitutes a distinct and independent offence. The act of the petitioner is not a part of the same transaction or is the outcome of the same incident and under such circumstances, subsequent FIRs are maintainable. We are of the considered opinion that submission on behalf of the petitioner that subsequent FIRs is an abuse of process of law is not sustainable.

15. Consequently, the admission is declined and the petition being bereft of merits, is hereby dismissed.