1. Heard Sri R.P.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Gyan Prakash, learned Senior Advocate / Deputy Solicitor General assisted by Sri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the C.B.I. and perused the material brought on record.

2. The present application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants- M/s Shri Balaji Hi-Tech Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Sachin Dutta and Rajendra Kumar Dutta with the following prayers:-

"1. It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be graciously be pleased to allow the application and consolidate/club all the Supplementary Charge Sheet dated 14- 03-2024, numbered as 20/2024 vide Special Case No. 69/2024 (C.B.I. Vs. M/s Shri Balaji Hi-tech Constructions Pvt. Ltd.), supplementary Charge sheet dated 30- 12-2019_numbered as 26/2019, vide Special Case No.02/2020, supplementary Charge sheet dated 13-03-2024 numbered as 09/2024, vide Special Case No.60/2024, (CBI vs Manveer and Others), Supplementary Charge Sheet dated 30-12-2019 numbered as 25/2019, vide Special Case No.03/2020 supplementary Charge sheet dated 15-03-2024 numbered as 31/2024, vide Special Case No. 70/2024 (CBI Anil Kumar Jain and Others) supplementary Charge sheet dated 30-12-2019 numbered as 24/2019, vide Special Case No.04/2020 supplementary Charge sheet dated 13-03-2024 numbered as 08/2024, vide Special Case No.61/2024 (CBI vs Vinod Kumar Pandey and Others), supplementary Charge sheet dated 30-12-2019 numbered as 23/2019, vide Special Case No.05/2020 supplementary Charge sheet dated 14-03-2024 numbered as 19/2024, vide Special Casc No.68/2024 (CBI vs Devendra Singh and Others), Supplementary Charge sheet dated 30- 12-2019 numbered as 22/2019, vide Special Case No.06/2020 supplementary Charge sheet dated 13-03-2024 numbered as 05/2024, vide Special Case No.63/2024 (CBI vs Pankaj Upadhyay and Others). Supplementary Charge Sheet dated 04-11-2020 numbered as 15/2020, vide Special Case No.10/2020, Supplementary Charge Sheet dated 14-03- 2024 numbered as 18/2024, vide Special Case No.67/2024 (CBI vs Ankur Bhasin and Pooja Abroal and Others), Supplementary Charge Sheet dated 02-11- 2020 numbered as 14/2020, vide Special Case No.11/2020, Supplementary Charge Sheet dated 14-03-2024 numbered as 17/2024, vide Special Case No.60/2024 (CBI vs Neeraj Aggarwal and Others), Supplementary Charge Sheet dated 02- 11-2020 numbered as 13/2020, vide Special Case No.12/2020, Supplementary Charge Sheet dated 13-03-2024 numbered as 

10/2024, vide Special Case No.65/2024 (CBI vs Chandra Prakash Dimri and Others), Supplementary Charge Sheet dated 21-01-2020 numbered as 01/2020, vide Special Case No.06/2020, Supplementary Charge Sheet dated 13-03-2024 numbered as 07/2024, vide Special Case No.62/2024_(CBI vs Harpreet Singh Saigal and Others), Supplementary Charge Sheet dated 03-02-2021 numbered as 04/2021, vide Special Case No.03/2021 Supplementary Charge Sheet dated 13-03- 2024 numbered as 06/2024, vide Special Case No.64/2024 (CBI vs Satyadeo Singh and Others), Supplementary Charge Sheet dated 08- 06-2023 numbered as 03/2023, vide Special Case No.11/2023, (CBI vs Nikunj Dudeja and Others), Supplementary Charge Sheet dated 24-08-2023 numbered as 08/2023, vide Special Case No.13/2023, (CBI vs Jai Shankar Shahi and Others), Supplementary Charge Sheet dated 13-03- 2024 numbered as 11/2024, vide Special Case No.27/2024, (CBI vs Aarti Malhotra and Others), Supplementary Charge Sheet dated 13-03-2024 numbered as 12/2024, vide Special Case No.26/2024, (CBI VS Arun Goenka and Others), Supplementary Charge Sheet dated 13-03-2024 numbered as 13/2024, vide Special Case No.25/2024, (CBI vs Kailash Kumar Ranga and Others), Supplementary Charge Sheet dated 13-03-2024 numbered as 14/2024, vide Special Case No.24/2024, (CBI vs Tapas Mitra and Others), Supplementary Charge Sheet dated 13-03-2024 numbered as 15/2024, vide Special Case No.34/2024, (CBI vs Arun Kumar Trivedi and Others), Supplementary Charge Sheet dated 14-03-2024 numbered as 16/2024, vide Special Case No.28/2024, (CBI vs Kundan Kumar and Others), Supplementary Charge Sheet dated 14-03-2024 numbered as 21/2024, vide Special Case No.13/2024, (CBI vs Alok Bharti and Others), Supplementary Charge Sheet dated 14-03-2024 numbered as 22/2024, vide Special Case No.14/2024, (CBI vs Dhananjay Kumar and Others), Supplementary Charge Sheet dated 14-03-2024 numbered as 23/2024, vide Special Case No.15/2024, (CBI vs Sanjeev Jain and Others), Supplementary Charge Sheet dated 14-03-2024 numbered as 24/2024, vide Special Case No.16/2024, (CBI vs Suman Gupta and Others), Supplementary Charge Sheet dated 14-03-2024 numbered as 25/2024, vide Special Case No.17/2024, (CBI vs Rajat Khanna and Others), Supplementary Charge Sheet dated 14-03-2024 numbered as 26/2024, vide Special Case No.29/2024, (CBI vs Pradeep Kumar Bhardwaj and Others), Supplementary Charge Sheet dated 14-03-2024 numbered as 28/2024, vide Special Case No.37/2024, (CBI VS Kumar Abhishek and Others), Supplementary Charge Sheet dated 14-03-2024 numbered as 29/2024, vide Special Case No.35/2024, (CBI VS S. Gurumurthy and Others), Supplementary Charge Sheet dated 14-03-2024 numbered as 30/2024, vide Special Case No.59/2024, (CBI vs Amit Saxena and Others), Supplementary Charge Sheet dated 15-03-2024 numbered as 27/2024, vide Special Case No.40/2024, (CBI vs Pushplata Dudeja and Others), Supplementary Charge Sheet dated 15-03-2024 numbered as 32/2024, vide Special Case No.32/2024, (CBI vs Anil Kumar and Others), Supplementary Charge Sheet dated 16-03-2024 numbered as 33/2024, vide Special Case No.46/2024, (CBI VS Devendra Kumar and Others), Supplementary Charge Sheet dated 16-03-2024 numbered as 34/2024, vide Special Case No.38/2024, (CBI vs M/ s Shri Balaji Hi-tech Constructions Pvt. Ltd. and Others). Supplementary Charge Sheet dated 16-03-2024 numbered as 35/2024, vide Special Case No.45/2024, (CBI vs Abhishek Govil and Others), Supplementary Charge Sheet dated 16-03-2024 numbered as 36/2024, vide Special Case No.49/2024, (CBI vs M/s Shri Balaji Hi-tech Constructions Pvt. Ltd. and Others), Supplementary Charge Sheet dated 16-03-2024 numbered as 37/2024, vide Special Case No.43/2024, (CBI vs Anil Kumar Sharma and Others), Supplementary Charge Sheet dated 19- 03-2024 numbered as 38/2024, vide Special Case No.41/2024, (CBI vs M/s Shri Balaji Hi-tech Constructions Pvt. Ltd. and Others), Supplementary Charge Sheet dated 19-03-2024 numbered as 39/2024, vide Special Case No.39/2024, (CBI vs Sagar Kumar Saini and Others), Supplementary Charge Sheet dated 19-03-2024 numbered as 40/2024, vide Special Case No.44/2024, (CBI VS Mahendra Singh and Others), Supplementary Charge Sheet dated 19-03-2024 numbered as 41/2024, vide Special Case No.47/2024, (CBI vs Radha Rani and Others), Supplementary Charge Sheet dated 19-03-2024 numbered as 42/2024, vide Special Case No.18/2024, (CBI vs Anand Kumar Maheshwari and Others), Supplementary Charge Sheet dated 19-03-2024 numbered as 43/2024, vide Special Case No. 19/2024, (CBI vs Manish Kalland and Others), Supplementary Charge Sheet dated 19-03-2024 numbered as 44/2024, vide Special Case No.20/2024, (CBI vs Om Hari Arora and Others), Supplementary Charge Sheet dated 19-03-2024 numbered as 45/2024, vide Special Case No.30/2024, (CBI vs Rajul Duve and Others), Supplementary Charge Sheet dated 19- 03-2024 numbered as 46/2024, vide Special Case No.31/2024, (CBI vs Shikhar Indolia and Others), Supplementary Charge Sheet dated 19-03-2024 numbered as 48/2024, vide Special Case No.23/2024, (CBI vs Ranjeet Singh and Others), Supplementary Charge Sheet dated 19- 03-2024 numbered as 49/2024, vide Special Case No.22/2024, (CBI vs Gaurav Singh and Others), Supplementary Charge Sheet dated 20-03-2024 numbered as 50/2024, vide Special Case No.21/2024, (CBI vs Manjeet Singh and Others), Supplementary Charge Sheet dated 20-03-2024 numbered as 51/2024, vide Special Case No.33/2024, (CBI vs Ravi Shankar Singh and Others), Supplementary Charge Sheet dated 22-03-2024 numbered as 52/2024, vide Special Case No.51/2024, (CBI vs Ajay Kumar and Others), Supplementary Charge Sheet dated 27-03-2024 numbered as 54/2024, vide Special Case No.36/2024, (CBI vs Somya Jain and Others), Supplementary Charge Sheet dated 01-04- 2024 numbered as 59/2024, vide Special Case No.42/2024, (CBI vs M/s Shri Balaji Hitech Constructions Pvt. Ltd. and Others), Supplementary Charge Sheet dated 01-04-2024 numbered as 60/2024, vide Special Case No.53/2024, (CBI vs Abhishek Singh and Others), Supplementary Charge Sheet dated 04-04-2024 numbered as 61/2024, vide Special Case No.71/2024, (CBI vs Indresh Kumar Sharma and Others), Supplementary Charge Sheet dated 04-04-2024 numbered as 62/2024, vide Special Case No.48/2024, (CBI vs Naveen Kumar and Others), Supplementary Charge Sheet dated 04-04-2024 numbered as 63/2024, vide Special Case No.52/2024, (CBI vs M/s Shri Balaji Hi-tech Constructions Pvt. Ltd. and Others), Supplementary Charge Sheet dated 04-04-2024 numbered as 64/2024, vide Special Case No.50/2024, (CBI vs Anupam Sareen and Others), Supplementary Charge Sheet dated 12-04- 2024 numbered as 66/2024, vide Special Case No.54/2024, (CBI vs Suresh Rawat and Others), Supplementary Charge Sheet dated 12-04-2024 numbered as 67/2024, vide Special Case No.55/2024, (CBI vs Jitender Kumar and Others), Supplementary Charge Sheet dated 12-04-2024 numbered as 68/2024, vide Special Case No.56/2024, (CBI vs Raj Kumar and Others), Supplementary Charge Sheet dated 22-04-2024 numbered as 69/2024, vide Special Case No.58/2024, (CBI vs Satish Kumar and Others), Supplementary Charge Sheet dated 22- 04-2024 numbered as 70/2024, vide Special Case No.57/2024, (CBI vs Prakash and Others), Under Sections 120- B r/w 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC with the original charge sheet dated 30-12-2019 numbered as 21/2019 u/s 173(2) Cr.P.C. vide Special Case No. 01/2020, arising out of same F.I.R. dated 02.08.2017 bearing RC No. 219 2017 E0017, Police Station CBI/EO-1 at New Delhi (C.B.I. Vs. M/s Shri Balaji Hi-tech Constructions Pvt. Ltd.), pending in the court of learned Special Judicial Magistrate, (C.B.I.), Ghaziabad (Annexure No.3 to the application).

It is further prayed that this Hon'ble court may graciously be pleased to stay the further proceedings of Special Case No. 69/2024 (C.B.I. Vs. M/s Shri Balaji Hi-tech Constructions Pvt. Ltd. and others), Special Case No.02/2020 (CBI vs Manveer and Others), Special Case No.60/2024, (CBI vs Manveer and Others), Special Case No.03/2020, (CBI vs Anil Kumar Jain and Others), Special Case No.70/2024 (CBI vs Anil Kumar Jain and Others), Special Case No.04/2020, (CBI vs Vinod Kumar Pandey and Others). Special Case No.61/2024 (CBI vs Vinod Kumar Pandey and Others), Special Case No.05/2020, (CBI vs Devendra Singh and Others), Special Case No.68/2024 (CBI vs Devendra Singh and Others), Special Case No.06/2020, (CBI vs Pankaj Upadhyay and Others), Special Case No.63/2024 (CBI vs Pankaj Upadhyay and Others), Special Case No.10/2020, (CBI vs Ankur Bhasin and Pooja Abroal and Others), Special Case No.67/2024 (CBI vs Ankur Bhasin and Pooja Abroal and Others), Special Case No.11/2020, CBI vs Neeraj Aggarwal and Others), Special Case No.60/2024, (CBI vs Neeraj Aggarwal and Others), Special Case No.12/2020, (CBI vs Chandra Prakash Dimri and Others), Special Case No.65/2024 (CBI vs Chandra Prakash Dimri and Others). Special Case No.06/2020, (CBI vs Harpreet Singh Saigal and Others), Special Case No.62/2024 (CBI vs Harpreet Singh Saigal and Others), Special Case No.03/2021, (CBI vs Satyadeo Singh and Others), Special Case No.64/2024 (CB1 vs Satyadeo Singh and Others), Special Case No.11/2023, (CBI vs Nikunj Dudeja and Others), Special Case No.13/2023, (CBI vs Jai Shankar Shahi and Others), Special Case No.27/2024, (CBI vs Aarti Malhotra and Others), Special Case No.26/2024, (CBI vs Arun Goenka and Others), Special Case No.25/2024, (CBI vs Kailash Kumar Ranga and Others), Special Case No.24/2024, (CBI vs Tapas Mitra and Others), Special Case No.34/2024, (CBI vs Arun Kumar Trivedi and Others), Special Case No.28/2024, (CBI vs Kundan Kumar and Others), Special Case No.13/2024, (CBI vs Alok Bharti and Others), Special Case No.14/2024, (CBI vs Dhananjay Kumar and Others), Special Case No.15/2024, (CBI vs Sanjeev Jain and Others), Special Case No.16/2024, (CBI vs Suman Gupta and Others), Special Case No.17/2024, (CBI vs Rajat Khanna and Others), Special Case No.29/2024, (CBI vs Pradeep Kumar Bhardwaj and Others), Special Case No.37/2024, (CBI vs Kumar Abhishek and Others), Special Case No.35/2024, (CBI vs S. Gurumurthy and Others), Special Case No.59/2024, (CBI vs Amit Saxena and Others), Special Case No.40/2024, (CBI vs Pushplata Dudeja and Others), Special Case No.32/2024, (CBI vs Anil Kumar and Others), Special Case No.46/2024, (CBI vs Devendra Kumar and Others), Special Case No.38/2024, (CBI vs M/s Shri Balaji Hi-tech Constructions Pvt. Ltd. and Others), Special Case No.45/2024, (CBI vs Abhishek Govil and Others), Special Case No.49/2024, (CBI vs M/s Shri Balaji Hi-tech Constructions Pvt. Ltd. and Others), Special Case No.43/2024, (CBI vs Anil Kumar Sharma and Others), Special Case No.41/2024, (CBI vs M/s Shri Balaji Hi-tech Constructions Pvt. Ltd. and Others), Special Case No.39/2024, (CBI vs Sagar Kumar Saini and Others), Special Case No.44/2024, (CBI vs Mahendra Singh and Others), Special Case No.47/2024, (CBI vs Radha Rani and Others), Special Case No.18/2024, (CBI vs Anand Kumar Maheshwari and Others), Special Case No.19/2024, (CBI vs Manish Kalland and Others), Special Case No.20/2024, (CBI vs Om Hari Arora and Others), Special Case No.30/2024, (CBI vs Rajul Duve and Others), Special Case No.31/2024, (CBI vs Shikhar Indolia and Others), Special Case No.23/2024, (CBI vs Ranjeet Singh and Others), Special Case No.22/2024, (CBI vs Gaurav Singh and Others), Special Case No.21/2024, (CBI vs Manjeet Singh and Others), Special Case No.33/2024, (CBI vs Ravi Shankar Singh and Others), Special Case No.51/2024, (CBI vs Ajay Kumar and Others), Special Case No.36/2024, (CBI vs Somya Jain and Others), Special Case No.42/2024, (CBI VS M/s Shri Balaji Hi-tech Constructions Pvt. Ltd. and Others), Special Case No.53/2024, (CBI vs Abhishek Singh and Others), Special Case No.71/2024, (CBI vs Indresh Kumar Sharma and Others), Special Case No.48/2024, (CBI vs Naveen Kumar and Others), Special Case No.52/2024, (CBI vs M/s Shri Balaji Hi-tech Constructions Pvt. Ltd. and Others), Special Case No.50/2024, (CBI vs Anupam Sareen and Others), Special Case No.54/2024, (CBI vs Suresh Rawat and Others), Special Case No.55/2024, (CBI vs Jitender Kumar and Others), Special Case No.56/2024, (CBI vs Raj Kumar and Others), Special Case No.58/2024, (CBI vs Satish Kumar and Others), Special Case No.57/2024, (CBI vs Prakash and Others), under sections 120-B r/w 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, arising out of same F.I.R. dated 02.08.2017 bearing RC No. 219 2017 E0017, Police Station CBI/EO-I at New Delhi, pending in the court of learned Special Judicial Magistrate, (C.B.I.), Ghaziabad (Annexure No.3 to the application), otherwise the applicants shall suffer irreparable loss and injury;

And/or to pass such and further orders or directions which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case."

3. The facts of the case are that a first information report was lodged on 02.08.2017 as Case Crime No. RC 219 2017 E 0017 of 2017, Police Station CBI/EO-I/DLI, District New Delhi, under Sections 120-B r/w 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Sections 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of P.C. Act, 1988 by the opposite party no. 2 / Major Sanjay Jain, Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank, Vasundhara, Ghaziabad against M/s Shri Balaji Hi-Tech Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Sachin Dutta, Director M/s Shri Balaji Hi-Tech Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Smt. Suruchi Dutta wife of Sachin Dutta, unknown officials of Punjab National Bank and other unknown persons on the basis of a complaint dated 15.07.2017 addressed to the Superintendent of Police, EOW-1, CBI, Delhi with regards to the fact that Sachin Dutta had purchased a plot bearing No.6, Crossing Republic, Ghaziabad for construction of a Group Housing Society & got the plan maps sanctioned from Ghaziabad Development Authority for building two towers named as "Foster Heights". He was the Director of the builder company who approached Punjab National Bank and requested for approval and sanction of project for housing loan to the allottees of flats by various branches of the bank at Ghaziabad & elsewhere. The bank approved the project and agreed for sanction of loan to allottees of the flats in the housing society subject to condition that builder M/s Shri Balaji Hi-tech Constructions Pvt. Ltd. shall mortgage the entire land of plot (GH plot No.06 at Khasra 820, 912, 915, 917, 918 and 920 Village Dundahera, Crossing Republic, Ghaziabad) on which the flats were to be constructed, as security in consideration of loans to be granted and sanctioned by the bank in favour its allottees. The allottees and borrowers who were interested to purchase the flats requested the bank through its various branches mainly at Vasundhra, Vaishali, Indirapuram and Retail Assets branches at Ghaziabad for extending loan to them. The respective branches upon credit appraisal of the borrowers and allottees sanctioned and granted housing loan to them. The builder equitably mortgaged the plot in favour of the bank by depositing its title deeds. Thus the builder and the borrowers were jointly liable to pay the dues of the bank. The Directors of the builder company are absconding. The accounts of the allottees / borrowers have been classified as NPA. Notice U/S 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act have been served upon the allottees / borrowers and the builder / authorized officer of it. Inspite of service of the notice there is default to make payment which they were jointly & severally liable to repay. The allottees and builder have defrauded the bank and fraudulently & dishonestly induced the Bank to extend loan to them and have received the loan amount on behalf of allottees and borrowers. The allottees & builder are not intending to repay the money which is due to the Bank and thus have cheated the Bank. Upon scrutiny of the file of the borrowers who took loan and on visit to the said site the bank comes to the conclusion that it has been cheated on various scores by the builder and borrowers.

4. It is further stated that the facts which have surfaced are that Sachin Dutta the Director has issued more than one allotment letter for the same flat which induced bank to finance the same flat more than one time and some of the times from its different branches. In all 50 accounts have been found to be as such. The Ghaziabad Development Authority had sanctioned apartments / flats upon ground floor / first floor being 15 floors in all in which flats were to be built, however, the builder has allotted flats on 16th floor also which was not approved and unconstructed and the same have been financed by the various branches of the bank. A total of 13 accounts have been found which have been financed for the 16th floor. The builder has executed 39 sale-deeds out of which 22 sale-deeds have been executed for the flats financed by the bank out of which 6 sale-deeds have been executed illegally in favour of third parties other than bank's borrowers. The said sale-deeds are null & void and liable to be set aside and the said persons have trespassed into flats which belong to the bank which is authorized to auction it as per the SARFAESI Act 2002. The said unauthorized persons have forcibly occupied number of flats which have been financed by the bank. The builder & allottees have cheated the bank with knowledge that wrongful loss may ensue to the Bank.

5. The matter was investigated and a charge-sheet No. 21 of 2019 dated 30.12.2019 was filed against M/s Shri Balaji Hi-Tech Constructions Pvt. Ltd. and Sachin Dutta for offences under Section 120-B r/w 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. & substantive offences thereof. In column 12 of the charge-sheet relating to the accused persons not charge-sheeted Upendra Pal, Ms. Suruchi Goel (earlier known as Smt. Suruchi Dutta) were arrayed for the reasons that Upendra Pal had expired on 04.07.2016 and in so far as Ms. Suruchi Goel is concerned, it was opined that there was no overt act or criminality on her part which could be established during investigation. In paragraph 16.21 of the said charge-sheet it was mentioned that further investigation with regards to role of Rajendra Kumar Dutta, the then Director of the builder company is being conducted and a report shall be submitted of such further investigation on its completion.

6. The court of the Special Judicial Magistrate, (C.B.I.), Ghaziabad vide its order dated 02.01.2020 took cognizance upon the said charge- sheet (No. 21 of 2019 dated 30.12.2019) and summoned the accused persons namely M/s Shri Balaji Hi-Tech Constructions Pvt. Ltd. and Sachin Dutta.

7. The matter continued for further investigation. Subsequently a charge-sheet No. 20 of 2024 dated 14.03.2024 was submitted against Rajendra Kumar Dutta for offences under Section 120-B r/w 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. & substantive offences thereof.

8. The court of the Special Judicial Magistrate, (C.B.I.), Ghaziabad took cognizance upon the same (No. 20 of 2024 dated 14.03.2024) vide order dated 03.05.2024.

9. Supplementary charge-sheets were submitted against Sachin Dutta and Rajendra Kumar Dutta and others being a total of 60 charge-sheets on which the court concerned took cognizance on various dates. The details of the same are as follows:-

The present petition has thus been filed before this Court with the prayers as aforesaid.

10. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that in the present case one first information report was lodged with regards to a construction being carried out by the builder on a plot of land by the name & style of “Foster Heights”. It is submitted that although after submission of the first charge-sheet No. 21 of 2019 dated 30.12.2019 and cognizance upon the same, the matter remained for further investigation which continued subsequent to which other charge-sheets were submitted as supplementary charge-sheets but the same related to different flats of the same building and apartment. It is submitted that the informant in all the matters is the same, the witnesses are the same but the only difference is with regards to borrowers in every matter. It is submitted that further material of every matter should have been added by the investigating agency in the principal investigation but in the present matter separate charge-sheets have been filed which is illegal.

11. Learned counsel for the applicants has relied upon the judgements / orders of the Apex Court in the cases of Akshay Jain & Others Vs. State of U.P.: Writ Petition No. 463 of 2022 decided on 06.08.2024, Satinder Singh Bhasin Vs. State of U.P. & another: 2021 SCC OnLine SC 3459, Amish Devgan Vs. Union of India & Others: (2021) 1 SCC 1, Amish Devgan Vs. Union of India & Others: (2021) 3 SCC 306, T.T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala: (2021) 6 SCC 181, Arnab Ranjan Goswami Vs. Union of India & Others: (2020) 14 SCC 12, Krishna Lal Chawla and other Vs. State of U.P. and others: (2021) 5 SCC 435, Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation: AIR 2013 SC 3794, Vinay Tyagi Vs. Irshad Ali @ Deepak and others: (2013) 5 SCC 762. It is submitted that as such the present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. be allowed and the directions as sought be given for consolidation of all the charge-sheets.

12. Learned counsel for the C.B.I. submitted that the present petition is a second petition for the prayers made herein which is not maintainable in as much as the applicant no.2 Sachin Dutta has previously filed a writ petition before this Court being Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 1492 of 2023 (Sachin Dutta Vs. State of U.P. and another) with the prayer for consolidation of all the FIRs pertaining to the housing project named "Foster Heights Housing Project" so that they may be investigated and tried together which was dismissed by a Division Bench vide order dated 03.03.2023, the copy of said order has been placed before the Court which has been perused and is as under:-

"1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the State-respondents.

2. The instant writ petition has been filed with the following prayer:-

"(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the consolidation of all the FIRs specifically First Information Report at Central Bureau of Investigation bearing No. RC 219 2017 E 0017 dated 02.08.2017 at Police Station-CBI/EO-I at New Delhi and numerous other FIRs across the State of U.P. and other cases which the petitioner is not aware, emanating from similar set of facts and allegations and pertaining to single housing project in question namely "Foster Heights Housing Project" so that all of them can be investigated and tried together.

(b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the Respondents to expedite and for conclusion of investigation and trial of all cases and other cases which the petitioner is not aware, emanating from similar set of facts and allegations and pertaining to single housing project in question namely "Foster Heights Housing Project" in a time bound manner.

(c) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ to grant stay of proceedings emanating from the FIR at Central Bureau of Investigation bearing No.RC 219 2017 E 0017 dated 02.08.2017 at Police Station CBI/EO-I at New Delhi and numerous other FIRs in the State of U.P. from similar set of facts and allegations and pertaining to single housing project in question namely Foster Heights and all other FIRs that have been lodged against the petitioner but are not within the knowledge of the petitioner and any other FIRs that come to the knowledge of this Court or the petitioner during the pendency of the writ petition.

(d) Issue any other and further order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.

(e) Award cost of this writ petition to petitioner."

3. Besides other FIRs, the impugned First Information Report has been lodged by the Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.) with the allegation that petitioner being Director of the Company namely, M/s Shri Balaji Hi-tech Constructions Pvt. Ltd., connived with allottees and cheated the Bank by obtaining housing loans on the basis of false and fabricated documents.

4. Petitioner is a Director of the Company, namely, M/s Shri Balaji Hi-tech Constructions Pvt. Ltd. It is further submitted that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive as petitioner was constantly remained ill and was not able to attend the day to day affairs and operations of the aforesaid Company, therefore, for the convenience of the proper business operations and to facilitate the regular functioning of the Company, he had handed over few signed blank allotment letters and other important documents to the Sales Head and Financial Head of the Company, namely, Neeraj Tiwari and Jai Tiwari. Hence, it cannot be denied that the said key employees of the Company in conspiracy with the other co-accused persons including the Bank officials might have misused the documents in order to obtain illegal multiple loans against one common flat. It is further submitted that petitioner, on his own, has not obtained any loan from any Bank over the said flats. It is further submitted that petitioner was not aware about any ambiguity or irregularity committed in the documents such as allotment letter, tripartite agreement etc. which was submitted on behalf of the Company before the Bank, because, all the documents submitted on behalf of the Company were prepared and arranged by the sales head and financial head and not from the side of the petitioner. It is further submitted that petitioner is facing multiplicity of investigations and trials emanating from the common set of facts and allegations, which is in violation of his fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In this regard, counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgments of Apex Court in the cases of T.T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala; (2001) 6 SCC 181 and Amitbhai Anichandra Shah Vs. CBI; (2013) 6 SCC 348. Lastly, it is submitted that petitioner is languishing in jail since 10.03.2017, whereas instant FIR has been lodged on 02.08.2017, which shows that during lodgment of impugned FIR, petitioner was in jail and was not aware, as to how, impugned FIR has been lodged against him, therefore, the present case is nothing but an abuse of process of law.

5. On the other hand, learned AGA for the State has vehemently opposed the contention aforesaid and submits that petitioner is a Director of the aforesaid Company and is involved in committing the aforesaid offence as all the FIRs are based on multiple cause of actions. There have been multiple transactions and several allotment letters have been issued by the accused, therefore, in the specific facts and circumstances of the case, the prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner cannot be granted.

6. Before entering into the facts of this case, we deem it proper to examine the law relating to the clubbing or consolidation of the FIRs. Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. provides for registration of the FIR on the basis of the information relating to the commission of cognizable offences. Section 155 of Cr.P.C. provides for recording of such information in respect of non-cognizable offences. Section 169 and 170 of the Cr.P.C. provide for the course of action on completion of investigation i.e. to release the accused when evidence is deficient or to send the case to Magistrate when evidence is sufficient. Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. requires the police officer to submit the final report before the Magistrate on completion of investigation containing the requisite details. Sub-section (8) of Section 173 permits further investigation after submission of report to the Magistrate. Section 220 of the Cr.P.C. deals with trial for more than one offences and provides that if in one series of act 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. Similarly, Section 219 of the Cr.P.C. provides that three offences of the same crime within one year may be charged together.

7. Considering the above statutory provisions by various judicial pronouncements, it is settled that there can be no straightjacket formula for consolidating or clubbing the FIR and Courts are required to examine the facts of each case. A second FIR in respect of same offence or different offences committed in the course of same transaction is not permissible. The second FIR on the basis of receipt of information in respect of same cognizable offence or the same occurrence or incident giving rise one or more cognizable offences is not permissible. It is also settled that the Courts are required to draw a balance between the fundamental rights of the citizens under Article 19 and 21 of the Constitution and expansive power of the police to investigate a cognizable offence. In a given case, second or successive FIR for same or connected cognizable offence alleged to have been committed in the course of the same transaction in respect of which earlier FIR is already registered, may furnish a ground for interference by the Court but where the FIRs are based upon the separate incident or similar or different offences or the subsequent crime is of such magnitude that it does not fall within the ambit and scope of the earlier FIR then the second FIR can be registered. Where two incidents took place at different point of time or involve different person or there is no commonality and the purpose thereof is different and the circumstances are also different then there can be more than one FIR. The Court is required to see the circumstances of a given case indicating proximity of time, unity or proximity of case, continuity of action, commonality of purpose of the crime to ascertain if more than one FIR can be allowed to stand.

8. The Supreme Court in the matter of T.T. Antony (supra) after taking note of the provisions of Section 154, 155, 156, 157, 162, 169, 170 and 173 of the Cr.P.C. and considering the issue of striking a balance between citizen's right under Article 19 and 21 of the Constitution and expansive power of police to make investigation, has held that there can be no second FIR and no fresh investigation on receipt of every subsequent information in respect of the same cognizable offence or same occurrence giving rise to one or more cognizable offences. It has further been held that after registration of the FIR under Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. in respect of commission of the cognizable offence, all such subsequent information is covered by Section 162 of Cr.P.C. and that Officer Incharge of the Police Station has to investigate not merely the cognizable offence reported in the FIR but also other connected offences found to have been committed in the course of the same transaction or the same occurrence and file one or more reports provided in Section 173 of Cr.P.C.

9. The Supreme Court in the matter of Upkar Singh Vs. Ved Prakash and others; (2004) 13 SCC 292 has clarified and explained the judgments in the case of T.T. Antony (supra) and has held that the second complaint in regard to the same incident filed as a counter complaint is not prohibited under the Cr.P.C. It has been held that in T.T. Antony's case (supra) the legal right of an aggrieved person to file counter complaint has not been considered.

10. In the case of Rameshchandra Nandlal Parikh Vs. State of Gujarat and another; (2006) 1 SCC 732, it has been held that if subsequent complaints were not in relation to same offence or occurrence or did not pertain to same party as alleged in the first report then on that ground the subsequent complaint need not be quashed.

11. In the case of Nirmal Singh Kahlon Vs. State of Punjab and others; (2009) 1 SCC 441 where the C.B.I. registered the second FIR considering the nature and extent of crime, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the C.B.I. detecting larger conspiracy not detected by local police is not precluded from lodging the second FIR.

12. In the case of Babubhai Vs. Stae of Gujarat and others; (2010) 12 SCC 254, the Supreme Court has further clarified it that if two FIRs pertains to two different incidents/ crimes, second FIR is permissible. Applying the test of sameness, it has been held that subsequent to registration of an FIR any further complaint in connection with the same or connected offence relating to the incident or incidents which are part of the same transaction is not permissible.

13. In the case of Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the applicability of 'consequence test' as laid down in the case of C. Muniappan and others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu; (2010) 9 SCC 567 and has held that there can be no fresh investigation on receipt of every subsequent information in respect of the same cognizable offence or the same occurence or incident giving rise to one more cognizable offence. It has further been held that the second FIR is permissible in the case of cross cases and it is also permissible if the offence disclosed does not form part of the first FIR or it cannot be said to be part of the same transaction as covered by the first FIR or cannot be said to be arising as a consequence of the offence covered by the first FIR.

14. In the case of Awadesh Kumar Jha @ Akhilesh Kumar Jha Vs. State of Bihar; (2016) 3 SCC 8, it has been held that if the substance of allegation in the second FIR is different from the first FIR and the second FIR relates to different transaction then the second FIR can be maintained.

15. In the case of Chirag M. Pathak & others vs. Dollyben Kantilal Patel & others (2018) 1 SCC 330 in a case where six FIRs were registered in different police stations and the ground was raised that all the FIRs are based on identical facts, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the six cooperative societies were different, their members were different, their area of operation was different, the lands which were sold/transferred were also different in different area, the party to whom the land was sold was different. The totality of factual allegations constitutes commission of several offences in relation to every cooperative society, hence, the FIRs were not overlapping and no case for quashing the FIR was made out.

16. In the matter of Lalu Prasad Yadav (supra), the defalcations were from different treasury for different financial year, amount involved was different, fake vouchers/allotment letters/supply orders were prepared with the help of different sets of accused persons, the Supreme Court has held that the separate trials are required to be conducted. It has further been clarified that 'same offence' is different from 'same kind of offence' and has held that if 'same kind of offence' was committed multiple times then each time it constitutes a separate offence and therefore accused can be tried in different trials. It has also been clarified that even if the modus operandi was same that would not make it a single offence when offences were different.

17. In the case of Arnab Ranjan Goswami vs. Union of India and others; (2020) 14 SCC 12, it has been held that filing of such multiple FIR causes intervention into petitioner's right as a citizen to fair treatment under Article 14 and freedom to conduct independent portryal of views under Article 19 (1)(a), but that is not so in the present case because petitioner is a Director of the aforesaid Company and all the FIRs are based on multiple cause of actions. There have been multiple transactions and several allotment letters have been issued by the accused (petitioner), therefore, in the specific facts and circumstances of the case, the prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner regarding consolidation of FIRs cannot be granted, as such, the same is liable to be rejected and is hereby rejected in view of the aforesaid law laid down by the Apex Court in case of Arnab Ranjan Goswami (supra).

18. Thus, it is settled that subsequent FIRs for different offences committed in the course of same transaction or offences arising as a consequence of prior offence is not permissible but the second complaint in regard to the same incident filed as a counter complaint as also the second FIR for the same nature of offence against same accused persons lodged by different person or containing the different allegation is permissible.

19. Though the different FIRs reveal that the same kind of offence has been registered against the petitioner for different courses and categories of persons but they are not the same offence or the offence in the same cause of action. The subsequent FIRs do not arise as a consequence of allegations made in the first FIR. Hence, the test of 'sameness' and the test of 'consequence' is not satisfied in the present case.

20. So far as contention made by the counsel for the petitioner with respect to expedite the trial for all the cases is concerned, at this juncture, in view of the judgment of Apex Court in case of Romila Thapar Vs. Union of India; (2018) 11 SCR 951, wherein, it has been held that investigation cannot run at the behest of the accused and an accused cannot be permitted to take control of the investigation by choosing from where should he be investigated.

21. Thus, in the light of the analysis of the case as mentioned above and after perusal of the impugned First Information Report as well as the abovenoted judgments of the Apex Court, the petitioner are not entitled for any of the reliefs claimed by the petitioner in this writ petition.

22. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands dismissed.

23. No order as to cost."

13. It is submitted that against the said order dated 03.03.2023 the petitioner therein Sachin Dutta preferred a Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No. 41353 of 2023 (Sachin Dutta Vs. State of U.P. and another) before the Apex Court which was dismissed vide order dated 12.12.2023, the copy of said order has been placed before the Court which has been perused and is as under:-

“Delay condoned.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

We do not find any reason to interfere with the order impugned in this petition. The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of."

14. It is submitted that as such in so far as the direction for clubbing the first information report so that they may be investigated and tried together is concerned, was turned down by a Division Bench of this Court which was affirmed by the Apex Court and as such the filing of the present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. would be a second effort for the same reliefs. It is next submitted that the prayers as prayed even otherwise cannot be granted since every transaction of loan is a separate and distinct transaction having different flat number, different allotment letters issued by the builder company for different allottees and every loan as sanctioned by the various branches of the bank are with regards to separate borrowers who have provided different sets of documents for securing loan and as such except for the fact that the builder and the project is common there is nothing else common since the loans have although been sanctioned by Punjab National Bank but the involvement therein was of its different branches wherein different officials were involved in it and as such there is no sameness and similarity in the matters and as such the same cannot be clubbed together and proceeded. It is further submitted that even for some flats the sale deeds have been executed for third parties other than bank's borrowers which also involves them in the matter.

15. Learned counsel for the C.B.I. further to buttress his argument has placed before the Court and has drawn the attention of the Court to paragraph 16.9 of charge-sheet No. 21 of 2019 dated 30.12.2019. The same reads as under:-

"16.9 Investigation further revealed that after approval of the Project Foster Heights by PNB Circle Office, Meerut a total number of 171 housing loans for purchase of flats in this project were sanctioned and disbursed by Vaishali, Vasundhara, Indirapuram and RAB branches of PNB at Ghaziabad. It has been revealed that some of these housing loans were got sanctioned by accused Sachin Dutta (builder) in criminal conspiracy with allottees / borrowers on the basis of forged and fabricated documents. The modus operandi adopted by builder had been that he issued multiple allotment letters for the same single flat to different individuals and secured housing loans in the name of all such allottees. Most of these allottees in criminal conspiracy with accused Sachin Dutta (builder) had merely lent their details and submitted personal documents to the builder so as to avail housing loan in their name on the basis of such allotment letters. No margin money / booking amount was paid by such allottees / borrowers to the builder and the builder issued forged receipts showing payment of such margin money / booking amount so as to induce the bank to release housing loan for the remaining cost of the flats. The salary slips and other documents of the allottees / borrowers were also forged and fabricated so as to make the allottees eligible for higher amount of loan. "

16. It is thus submitted that there are multiple accused persons and as such there is no similarity in all the matters which cannot be clubbed.

17. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that a first information report was lodged on 02.08.2017 by the C.B.I. on the basis of a complaint by the Authorized Officer of the bank against the builder company, its Director and other persons. Initially a charge-sheet No. 21 of 2019 dated 30.12.2019 was filed against the builder and its Director on which the court concerned took cognizance vide order dated 02.01.2020. The matter relates to a housing society being developed and proposed by the builder in the name of "Foster Heights" on an identified piece of land. On some persuasion by the builder Punjab National Bank agreed to extend loan to the allottees / borrowers subject to the conditions decided by them. After completion of formalities by the builder, the bank through its different branches granted loans to the allottees / borrowers. The bank at a later stage came to know of various discrepancies, irregularities and illegalities and thus lodged the present first information report. The contents of the first information report have already been stated above. The Director Sachin Dutta approached this court by filing a writ petition with the prayer for consolidation of the FIRs, investigation and trial of all matters. The same was negated by an order dated 03.03.2023 of a Division Bench of this Court which was affirmed by the Apex Court. The present petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has thus been filed with the prayers as aforesaid. Although the argument of learned counsel for the C.B.I. is that the present petition is a second petition and the same is with regards to its maintainability because of the previous writ petition which although cannot be said to be without any substance but even otherwise since charge-sheet and supplementary charge-sheets have been filed on which the court concerned has taken cognizance, this Court proceeded to examine the matter.

18. In so far as argument of clubbing of the supplementary charge- sheets with one charge-sheet is concerned, the facts as even demonstrated above in the chart goes to show that the flat nos., borrowers, charge- sheeted persons are different in all the matters. The only common feature in all the matters is the project of the builder named as "Foster Heights" and the builder and it’s Director. The admitted case of the parties is that even facility of loan / finance was extended to the concerned and respective borrowers through different branches of Punjab National Bank. Thus except for the bank being common the loaning branches were also different. For some flats sale deeds have been executed for third parties other than bank's borrowers which also involves them in the matter. Thus there is as such no similarity in the matters relating to which supplementary charge-sheets have been filed from the main charge-sheet.

19. It is trite law that FIR is not an encyclopaedia. The Apex Court in the case of CBI Vs. Tapan Kumar Singh: (2003) 6 SCC 175 has held that a first information report is not an encyclopaedia. It has been held as under:-

“20. It is well settled that a first information report is not an encyclopaedia, which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. An informant may lodge a report about the commission of an offence though he may not know the name of the victim or his assailant. He may not even know how the occurrence took place. A first informant need not necessarily be an eyewitness so as to be able to disclose in great detail all aspects of the offence committed. What is of significance is that the information given must disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and the information so lodged must provide a basis for the police officer to suspect the commission of a cognizable offence. At this stage it is enough if the police officer on the basis of the information given suspects the commission of a cognizable offence, and not that he must be convinced or satisfied that a cognizable offence has been committed. If he has reasons to suspect, on the basis of information received, that a cognizable offence may have been committed, he is bound to record the information and conduct an investigation. At this stage it is also not necessary for him to satisfy himself about the truthfulness of the information. It is only after a complete investigation that he may be able to report on the truthfulness or otherwise of the information. Similarly, even if the information does not furnish all the details he must find out those details in the course of investigation and collect all the necessary evidence. The information given disclosing the commission of a cognizable offence only sets in motion the investigative machinery, with a view to collect all necessary evidence, and thereafter to take action in accordance with law. The true test is whether the information furnished provides a reason to suspect the commission of an offence, which the police officer concerned is empowered under Section 156 of the Code to investigate. If it does, he has no option but to record the information and proceed to investigate the case either himself or depute any other competent officer to conduct the investigation. The question as to whether the report is true, whether it discloses full details regarding the manner of occurrence, whether the accused is named, and whether there is sufficient evidence to support the allegations are all matters which are alien to the consideration of the question whether the report discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. Even if the information does not give full details regarding these matters, the investigating officer is not absolved of his duty to investigate the case and discover the true facts, if he can.

(Emphasis supplied)"

20. It is thus clear that the First Information Report of the matter states of facts which on investigation resulted in a main charge-sheet and various supplementary charge-sheets, which is the purpose of investigation being to probe the truth about the allegations therein. Since the matters have multiple accused in which their respective documents are involved and even the branches of the bank are different which will be having different bank officials and as such the said respective cases will be having different sets of witnesses, the prayer as prayed for is thus not justified.

21. The petition lacks merit and is accordingly, dismissed.