Rajasthan HC Consolidates 259 FIRs Against Sanjivani Group Chairman, Says Process Became Punishment Due To Violation Of Right To Speedy Trial

Rajasthan High Court invoked its inherent powers under Section 482, CrPC, to consolidate 259 FIRs filed against the chairperson of Sanjivani Credit Cooperative Society (“Petitioner”) into different bunches based on the geographical locations of these FIRs and observed that in light of these many cases, the Petitioner was being shunted from one place to another without having any fair opportunity to fight his cases.

“He has been trapped in a vicious cycle of the criminal process where in fact the process has itself became the punishment. A serious question would arise as to whether the proceeding against the accused shall be called as prosecution or it would be a persecution. Whether it's a persecution or be it a prosecution but in anyway it must come to an end within a reasonable period. Long incarceration of an individual without effectively furthering the criminal proceeding cannot be considered as prosecution established in accordance with the law.”

The bench of Justice Farjand Ali was hearing a petition filed by Vikram Singh, seeking consolidation of trials pending against him for offences of cheating, misappropriation of property, and criminal conspiracy. The Petitioner was the chairperson of the Sanjivani Credit Cooperative Society who had registered a multi-level cooperative society in 2019.

Thousands of investors/depositors/members were registered from all over Rajasthan and some other states as well, however, eventually the society failed to honour its payments coupled with certain allegations of mismanagement and misappropriation of funds. This was followed by a flood of identical FIRs against the petitioner totalling almost 259 criminal cases registered at different places across Rajasthan relating to the same cause of action and nature of transaction.

It was submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the accused was shunting between the places to mark his presence for the last 5 years, leading to a lot of wastage of time in roaming, which was not allowing the petitioner to contest his cases properly.

The Court observed that a single transactional activity of luring people to invest money by forming a society and then allegedly cheating/defrauding several people was the crux of each of the cases lodged against the petitioner, filed by different people in different areas of Rajasthan. Hence, subjecting the petitioner to endless rounds of proceedings in diverse courts when the allegation in each case was the same could not be approved to be justifiable on the part of the State.

Right to speedy trial

The Court observed that the right to a free and fair trial also includes the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.

It was opined that the petitioner was trapped in a vicious cycle of the criminal process which itself had become the punishment and such long incarceration of an individual without furthering the proceedings was not a prosecution established in accordance with the law.

It was also held that multiple FIRs leading to multiple investigations and trials arising out of the same cause of action would prolong the trial which would violate the fundamental right of both parties particularly when the substance of the accusation, the cause of action and the nature of evidence were the same.

“From the facts and circumstances mentioned above it can be speculated or presumed that conclusion of the trials against the accused/petitioner in 259 cases would take around 50 years. The average life expectancy of a human being, in general prudence, is 70 to 80 years. The present age of the petitioner is already around 45 years, and for 5 years, he has been behind bars… Can a Constitutional Court may allow an accused to let die in prison while battling with vicious cycle of the criminal procedure without hope of a culmination of trial? No, never.”

The Court further highlighted a significant difference between prosecution and persecution and observed that being a constitutional court and custodian of law, it was the Court's duty to ensure that the accused was prosecuted and not persecuted since persecution was rooted in discrimination and bias leading to unjust treatment.

“In prosecution, the accused face trial in a court of law, where their guilt or innocence is determined based on evidence. Persecution can result in a range of human rights violations, including denial of freedom of expression. Prosecution, when conducted fairly, is a key component of the legal system ensuring justice and accountability…Petitioner/accused is entitled to enjoy the rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India which includes the right of the accused to be safeguarded from vexatious trial.”

Court's power to consolidate cases

The Court referred to Section 219 of CrPC which lays down that if a person was accused of committing three similar offences within a year, all such offences could be charged and tried at the same time. However, the Court highlighted that the provision limited such consolidation to up to three cases while being silent on a situation when the number of cases was more than three.

In the absence of any such provision, the Court relied upon the doctrine of Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium which provides that if there was a violation of the legal right, then the law provided for a remedy to the affected person.

“Everyone including the accused has a right to have a good legal remedy by the competent Court for the acts which violate his fundamental rights and human right which are guaranteed to every citizen by the Constitution of India.”

Furthermore, the Court also made reference to some of the cases wherein the Apex Court had consolidated cases. In Mohammed Zubair v State of NCT of Delhi, the Supreme Court allowed consolidation of overlapping cases and observed that a fair investigative process would require such consolidation and their entrustment to one single authority as opposed to piece-meal investigation by a diverse set of law enforcement agencies.

Similarly, in N.V Sharma v Union of India and Ors. too, the Apex Court emphasized the importance of consolidation of cases and directed such consolidation of FIRs and their transfer to the Delhi Police for investigation.

Finally, the Court said that the inherent powers of the High Courts under Article 482, CrPC were vested with an expectation with the Court to impart justice and it enabled the Court to make necessary orders to prevent the abuse of the process of court and law even in the absence of any express provision of law to that effect.

In the background of this analysis, the Court ordered for clubbing of all the cases against the petitioner in some groups based on the geographical status of their lodging for achieving the purpose of a speedy and fair trial and also for securing the ends of justice.

The Court further stated that even though it was aware of the potential inconvenience that such transferring of cases would cause to different complainants. when such inconvenience was compared to the right of the accused to be able to defend more than 250 cases properly, the scales of justice inclined in favour of the right of the accused.

Accordingly, the petition was allowed.

Title: Vikram Singh v State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 258

Click Here To Read/Download Order