CHIRAG M. PATHAK & ORS. ETC.ETC. versus DOLLYBEN KANTILAL & ORS.
[2017] 14 S.C.R. 424, Supreme Court of India, 2017
Outcome: Disposed off
Segment: Ratio
A 
B 
[2017] 14 S.C.R. 424 
CHIRAG M. PATHAK & ORS. ETC.ETC. 
v. 
DOLLYBEN KANTILAL & ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 1947-1956 of2017) 
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] 
H 
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 
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 
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 
c 
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 E 
.accomplished,
who were parties to it, who were those persons 
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 
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 
F 
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. 
B 
[Paras 24, 25) [434-A-C) 
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. 
E 
F 
[Paras 33-35)(435-F-H; 436-A-B) 
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 
[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. 
H 
WITH 
SLP (Cr!.) Nos. 869-878 of2014. 
HuzefaAhmadi, Sr. Adv., Varinder Kumar Sharma, Rohan Sharma, 
Ms. Shahrukh Alam, Ad vs. for the Appellant.
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 
Vs!od.!ra 
ci...aublm, 
KllmM I>adi.;,. 
B 
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, 
l~ .. 2.B 
·11133 
~. Vima! . . . 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!. 
p~ 
F 
Mmojblloi Mehta, 
Bach'ObbboiA. 
P.atel, Hmah B, 
Blol:m4lllan, 
M1lk6li, C Piia, 
KclilJ!A. !>a:.!, 
itljf>h'M. Pm!, 
Babu-bhai S.Pzt<I, 
G 
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 
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, 
A 
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 
B 
ill:rushm~ M . 
. 
. 
~~~a,N~a4c-
ben M: Patti, 
S :uojben G 
~~el, 
Anindbh.ai.M .. 
c 
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' 
1Iodi,~~ -
191.13 
11135 
Villi.£e 
:6o,.vmii 
• .• 
• ~ 
.• 
• 
I 
f~ed 
~
: 
.D~Ilj'k~ 
DioeshBhahi'al~ 
K:mlipur.a ·soael\ ... 
=~tiWP~~. 
.... ' ..... 
~ 
• 
• I 
J:~~du~l 
Area-
' ' _M;Qplira :A!hol:bhai 
Mal:rpur2 
94~sq. 
Des:i'bki 
Kap2dia; 
' 
Vmodm'i 
P.S. 
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 
bh2i 
. 
..._ 
. 
Dosh~~Asuh 
' 
S~ali, Sur~Jh: 
Kantrbl s~ 
~·~iibh:ai, 
.· 
D 
E 
v alliQhblul 
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. 
Vadodara 
fohbhai 
1aimit Doshi, 
B 
Shankcrbhai 
Upcndra 
Patel 
Ashabhai 
Pat<!, 
Bipinbhai 
Chotabhai 
Pat<!, Dahya-
bhaiB.Pat<l, 
c 
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. 
H 
7. In other words, the contention of the accused persons before 
the High Court was that the subsequent registration of five FIRs after
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. 
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. 
B 
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 
impugned order: 
E 
"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 of special 
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. 
D 
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. 
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, 
c 
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 
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. 
F 
G 
H 
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 
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 
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
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, 
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 
impugned FIRs. 
B 
c 
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. 
D ivy a Pandey 
Matters disposed of.