# Ram Parvesh Yadav v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 11 ILRA 202
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-10-07
- **Case number:** Misc. Bench No. 23080 of 2021
- **Bench:** Ramesh Sinha, Mrs. Saroj Yadav
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-parvesh-yadav-v-state-of-u-p-ors-46484
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law -Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 -Section 154 - The Constitution of India,
1950 - Article 19, 21 - Successive FIRs - Test of
Sameness or test of consequence - 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
persons
or
containing
the
different
allegation
is
permissible. (Para 19)

Where two incidents took place at different point of time
or involve different person or there is 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 or not. (Para 9)

The Court held that filing of multiple FIRs causes
intervention into petitioner's right as a citizen to fair
treatment under Article 14 and freedom to conduct
independent portrayal of views under Article 19(1)(a)
of the Constitution of India, but that is not so in the
present case because in this case involvement of
different category of person(s) holding the post in
U.P. Co-operative Bank in respect of irregularity in
recruitment of different posts has given separate
cause of action. (Para 18)

Writ Petition Rejected. (E-10)
List of Cases cited:-

## Text

202 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
absence of any such finding, the impugned order
could not have been passed. Further, admittedly,
the private respondents are having number of
properties. They are living in their own house at
Udaiganj, Lucknow. Petitioner with her son was
living on the ground floor of the multi-story
house at Gomti Nagar, Lucknow. Petitioner and
her son have no concern with any of the floors
above the ground floor of the said house from
which they have been evicted in furtherance of
the impugned order. I do not find any
circumstance under which it can be stated that
they were causing any damage or interfering in
any manner with the lives of the private
respondents. On the contrary, by their ousting
they have been left roofless and to put great
inconvenience.

16. In the given facts and circumstances of
the case, the impugned order dated 14.07.2021
cannot stand and is aside. Respondents are
directed to hand over the possession of the
ground floor of the House No.3/347, Vishal
Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow to the petitioner
and her son forthwith. Petitioner shall not in any
manner interfere with the ingress and egress of
the occupants of the floors above the ground
floor. Private respondents also shall not disturb
or interfere in any manner with the living of the
petitioner and her son in the said property.

17. With the aforesaid, present writ
petition stands allowed.
----------
(2021)11ILR A202
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 07.10.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAMESH SINHA, J.
THE HON'BLE MRS. SAROJ YADAV, J.

Misc. Bench No. 23080 of 2021

Ram Parvesh Yadav ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Kaushtubh
Singh,
Illegible,
Kamal
Kishore
Sharma

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A.

A. Criminal Law -Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 -Section 154 - The Constitution of India,
1950 - Article 19, 21 - Successive FIRs - Test of
Sameness or test of consequence - 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
persons
or
containing
the
different
allegation
is
permissible. (Para 19)

Where two incidents took place at different point of time
or involve different person or there is 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 or not. (Para 9)

The Court held that filing of multiple FIRs causes
intervention into petitioner's right as a citizen to fair
treatment under Article 14 and freedom to conduct
independent portrayal of views under Article 19(1)(a)
of the Constitution of India, but that is not so in the
present case because in this case involvement of
different category of person(s) holding the post in
U.P. Co-operative Bank in respect of irregularity in
recruitment of different posts has given separate
cause of action. (Para 18)

Writ Petition Rejected. (E-10)
List of Cases cited:-

1. Arnab Ranjan Goswami Vs U.O.I. & ors. (2020) 14
SCC 51 (distinguished)
11 All. Ram Parvesh Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
203
2. T.T. Antony Vs St. of Kerala & ors. (2001) 6 SCC
181

3. Upkar Singh Vs Ved Prakash & ors. (2004) 13 SCC 292

4. Rameshchandra Nandlal Parikh Vs St. of Guj. &
anr. (2006) 1 SCC 732

5. Nirmal Singh Kahlon Vs St. of Punj. & ors. (2009) 1
SCC 441

6. Babubhai Vs St.of Guaj. & Ors. (2010) 12 SCC 254

7. Awadesh Kumar Jha @ Akhilesh Kumar Jha Vs St.
of Bihar (2016) 3 SCC 8

8. Chirag M. Pathak & ors. Vs Dollyben Kantilal Patel
& ors. (2018) 1 SCC 330

9. St. of Jharkhand Vs Lalu Prasad Yadav (2017) 8
SCC 1

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha, J.)

(1) In this petition, the petitioner, Ram
Pravesh Yadav, is seeking a writ of mandamus
directing the respondents to consolidate all First
Information Reports registered against him for
the purposes of investigation, enquiry and trial.
The details of cases pending against the writ
petitioner are as under :-

Sr. No FIR
&
Date of
Registra
tion
of
FIR
Place of
Registra
tion
of
FIR
Sectio
n
Date
of
Offen
ce
Name
of
Comp
lainan
t
Accused
01.
FIR No.
0013 of
2020
27.10.20
20

P.S.
S.I.T.
District
Luckno
w
420,
467,
468,
471,
120-B
I.P.C.
From
01.04.
12 to
31.03.
17
Inspec
tor
Sri
Rajul
Garg
(1) Hira
Lal
Yadav
(2) Ravi
Kant
Singh
(3)
Ramjata
n Yadav
(4)
Rakesh
Kumar
Mishra
(5)
Santosh
Kumar
Srivastav
a
(6) Ram
Pravesh
Yadav
(7) Other
officer
and
employe
es of UP
Cooperative
Institutio
n
Service
Mandal
Luckno
w
(8) Other
officer
and
employe
es of the
Managin
g
Committ
ee
and
Bank of
U.P. Cooperative
Bank
02.
0021 of
2021
P.S.
S.I.T.
District
Luckno
w
420,
467,
468,
471,
201,
204,
120-B
I.P.C.
From
01.04.
2012
to
31.03.
2017
Inspec
tor
Kunw
ar
Brahm
Prakas
h
Singh
(1) Ram
Jatan
Yadav
(2)
Rakesh
Kumar
Mishra
(3)
Santosh
Kumar
Srivastav
a
(4) Ram
Pravesh
Yadav
(5) Other
officer
and
employe
es of UP
Cooperative
Institutio
n
Service
Mandal
Luckno
w
3.
022
of 21.05.20
420,
From
Inspec
(1) Ram
204 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
2021
21
P.S.
S.I.T.
District
Luckno
w
467,
468,
471,
201,
204,
120-B
I.P.C.
01.04.
2012
to
31.03.
2017
tor
Kunw
ar
Braha
m
Prakas
h
Singh
Jatan
Yadav
(2)
Rakesh
Kumar
Mishra
(3)
Santosh
Kumar
Srivastav
a
(4) Ram
Pravesh
Yadav
(5)
Narad
Yadav
(6)
Sudish
Kumar
(7)
the
then
officer
of
the
Managin
g
Committ
ee
of
U.P. Cooperative
Village
Develop
ment
Bank
Ltd.
Luckno
w.
(8)
the
officer
and
employe
es of the
U.P. Cooperative
Village
Develop
ment
Bank
Ltd.
Luckno
w
and
U.P. Cooperative
Institutio
n
Service
Board,
Luckno
w.
04.
0023 of
2021
P.S.
S.I.T.
420,
467,
From
01.1.2
Inspec
tor
(1) Ram
Jatan
21.05.20
21
District
Luckno
w
468,
471,
201,
204,
120-B
I.P.C.
015 to
31.12.
2016
Kunw
ar
Braha
m
Prakas
h
Singh
Yadav
(2)
Rakesh
Kumar
Mishra
(3)
Santosh
Kumar
Srivastav
a
(4) Ram
Pravesh
Yadav
(5)
the
officer
and
employe
es of the
U.P. Cooperative
Institutio
n
Service
Board,
Luckno
w.
05.
0024 of
2021
21.05.20
21
P.S.
S.I.T.
District
Luckno
w
420,
467,
468,
471,
201,
204,
120-B
I.P.C.
From
01.04.
2012
to
31.03.
2017
Inspec
tor
Kunw
ar
Braha
m
Prakas
h
Singh
(1) Ram
Jatan
Yadav
(2)
Rakesh
Kumar
Mishra
(3)
Santosh
Kumar
Srivastav
a
(4) Ram
Pravesh
Yadav
(5)
the
officer
and
employe
es of the
U.P. Cooperative
Institutio
n
Service
Board,
Luckno
w.
 07.
0025 of
2021
21.05.20
21
P.S.
S.I.T.
District
Luckno
w
420,
467,
468,
471,
201,
204,
From
01.01.
2016
to
31.12.
2017
Inspec
tor
Kunw
ar
Braha
m
(1) Ram
Jatan
Yadav
(2)
Rakesh
Kumar
11 All. Ram Parvesh Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
205
120-B
I.P.C.
Prakas
h
Singh
Mishra
(3)
Santosh
Kumar
Srivastav
a
(4) Ram
Pravesh
Yadav
(5)
the
officer
and
employe
es of the
U.P. Cooperative
Institutio
n
Service
Board,
Luckno
w.

(2) In addition, the petitioner is also
seeking a writ of Mandamus directing the
respondents that if the petitioner is arrested in
connection with any criminal case, arising out of
the First Information Reports, involved in the
present cases, the arresting officer shall release
him on bail on executing a Bail Bond to the
satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.

(3) It transpires from the record that vide
Government Order dated 27.04.2018 (Annexure
No.7), the Secretary (Home), Government of
U.P., Lucknow, had entrusted the enquiry to the
Special Investigating Team (S.I.T.) in respect of
the recruitment made between 01.04.2012 to
31.03.2017 in Co-operative Department and its
subordinate institutions. In pursuance thereof,
the Secretary, State of U.P., Lucknow, vide
order dated 20.06.2018, limited the scope of
enquiry in relation to the recruitment made
between 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2017 through U.P.
Co-operative Institutions Service Mandal and
issued direction to S.I.T. accordingly. The S.I.T.,
after due enquiry, found that the officers and
employees of the U.P. Co-operative Bank and its
Managing Committee were involved in criminal
conspiracy
by
changing
the
compulsory
educational qualification for different posts
contrary
to
U.P.
Co-operative
Societies
Employees' Service Regulations, 1975. In these
backgrounds, aforesaid F.I.Rs. have been lodged
against the accused persons including the writ
petitioner.

(4) Heard Mr. Kamal Kishore Sharma,
learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. D.S.
Rana, learned Additional Government Advocate
for the State and perused the material brought on
record.

(5) The contention of the learned counsel
for the petitioner is that all the aforesaid six First
Information Reports are based on the same cause
of action arising out of the order dated
27.04.2018, which was issued by political
vendetta by the present Government. He argued
that in order to ensure fair administration of
criminal justice and further to ensure that
criminal process does not assume the character
vexatious exercise by the institution of miserable
First Information Report, founded on the same
cause of action, all the First Information Reports
be consolidated. He argued that the Scheme of
the Code of Criminal Procedure is that an
Officer Incharge of the Police Station has to
commence an investigation as provided under
Section 156/157 Cr.P.C. on the basis of the entry
of the First Information Report. On completion
of the investigation and on the basis of the
evidence collected by the Investigating Officer,
he has to form an opinion under Section 169/170
Cr.P.C. as the case may be and forward his
report to the concerned Magistrate under Section
173 (2) Cr.P.C. He further argued that even after
filing of such a report, if the Investigating
Officer comes across further investigation or
material, he need not register a fresh First
Information Report, because, he is empowered
to make further investigation, normally, with the
leave of the Court and where during further
investigation, he collects further evidence, orally
or documentary, he is obliged to forward the
206 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
same with one or further reports and this is an
import of sub-Section (8) of Section 173 Cr.P.C.

(6) It is also contended by the learned
Counsel for the petitioner that the right of fair
investigation, arising out of the registration of an
F.I.R., is a fundamental right of a person or
accused,
guaranteed
and
enshrined
under
Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
He submits that the case of the present writ
petitioner is similar and identical to that of the
case of Arnab Ranjan Goswami Vs. Union of
India and others : (2020) 14 SCC 51, wherein
the Apex Court, in the interest of fair
administration of criminal justice, has drawn up
a balance between governing principles set-forth
therein and on the basis of the same, interim
reliefs were granted in favour of Arnab Ranjan
Goswami, Editor-in-Chief of the Republic T.V.,
hence the petitioner is entitled to be granted
similar relief as has been granted to Arnab
Ranjan Goswami (supra) by the Apex Court on
the ground of parity.

(7) Per contra, learned Standing Counsel
has submitted that separate FIRs have been
registered against the writ petitioner and other
co-accused persons on different allegations and
further the witnesses in each case are different,
therefore, the prayer of the petitioner for
consolidating all six F.I.Rs. registered against
the petitioner and other co-accused persons, is
not sustainable. He argued that the case of the
writ petitioner is distinguishable with Arnab
Ranjan Goswami (supra).

(8) Having heard rival submissions of the
learned Counsel for the parties and going
through the record, 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 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.

 Arnab Ranjan Goswami vs. Union of
India and othersArnab Ranjan Goswami Vs.
Union of India and others

(9) 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 & 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
same transaction in respect of which earlier FIR
11 All. Ram Parvesh Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
207
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.

(10) The Apex Court in the case of T.T.
Antony Vs. State of Kerala and others : (2001) 6
SCC 181, after taking note of the provisions of
Section 154 to 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 the 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.

(11) The Apex Court in the case of Upkar
Singh vs. Ved Prakash & Others : (2004) 13
SCC 292 has clarified and explained the
judgments rendered 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, the
legal right of an aggrieved person to file counter
complaint has not been considered.

(12) In Rameshchandra Nandlal Parikh
vs. State of Gujarat & Another : (2006) 1 SCC
732, the Apex Court has 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.

(13) In Nirmal Singh Kahlon vs. State of
Punjab & others : (2009) 1 SCC 441, where the
C.B.I. registered the second FIR considering the
nature and extent of crime, the Apex Court has
held that the C.B.I. detecting larger conspiracy
not detected by local police is not precluded
from lodging the second FIR.

(14) In the case of Babubhai vs. State of
Gujarat & others : (2010) 12 SCC 254, the
Apex Court has further clarified that if two FIRs
pertains to two different incidents/crimes,
second FIR is permissible. Applying the test of
sameness, it has been held by the Apex Court
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. Taking note of the earlier
pronouncements on the issue, it has been held by
the Apex Court that:

 Arnab Ranjan Goswami vs. Union of
India and othersArnab Ranjan Goswami Vs.
Union of India and others

"20. Thus, in view of the above, the
law on the subject emerges to the effect that an
FIR under Section 154 Cr.P.C. is a very
important document. It is the first information of
a cognizable offence recorded by the Officer In-
208 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Charge of the Police Station. It sets the
machinery of criminal law in motion and marks
the commencement of the investigation which
ends with the formation of an opinion under
Section 169 or 170 Cr.P.C., as the case may be,
and forwarding of a police report under Section
173 Cr.P.C. Thus, it is quite possible that more
than one piece of information be given to the
Police Officer In- charge of the Police Station in
respect of the same incident involving one or
more than one cognizable offences. In such a
case, he need not enter each piece of information
in the Diary. All other information given orally
or in writing after the commencement of the
investigation into the facts mentioned in the First
Information Report will be statements falling
under Section 162 Cr.P.C.

21. In such a case the court has to
examine the facts and cir- cumstances giving
rise to both the FIRs and the test of sameness is
to be applied to find out whether both the FIRs
relate to the same incident in respect of the same
occurrence or are in regard to the incidents
which are two or more parts of the same
transaction. If the answer is affirmative, the
second FIR is liable to be quashed. However, in
case, the contrary is proved, where the version in
the second FIR is different and they are in
respect of the two different incidents/crimes, the
second FIR is permissible. In case in respect of
the same incident the accused in the first FIR
comes forward with a different version or
counter claim, investigation on both the FIRs
has to be conducted."

(15) In the case of Awadesh Kumar Jha
@ Akhilesh Kumar Jha vs. State of Bihar :
(2016) 3 SCC 8, the Apex Court has 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.

(16) In the case of Chirag M. Pathak &
others vs. Dollyben Kantilal Patel & others
(2018) 1 SCC 330, wherein six FIRs were
registered in different police stations and the
ground was raised that all the FIRs are based on
identical facts, the Apex 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.

(17) In the case of State of Jharkhand vs.
Lalu Prasad Yadav : (2017) 8 SCC 1, 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 Apex 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. The
Apex Court in the said case has held as under:

"42. We are unable to accept the
submissions raised by learned senior counsel.
Though there was one general charge of
conspiracy, which was allied in nature, the
charge was qualified with the substantive charge
of defalcation of a particular sum from a
particular treasury in particular time period. The
charge has to be taken in substance for the
purpose of defalcation from a particular treasury
in a particular financial year exceeding the
allocation made for the purpose of animal
11 All. Ram Parvesh Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
209
husbandry on the basis of fake vouchers, fake
supply orders etc. The sanctions made in Budget
were separate for each and every year. This
Court has already dealt with this matter when
the prayers for amalgamation and joint trial had
been made and in view of the position of law
and various provisions discussed above, we are
of the opinion that separate trials which are
being made are in accordance with provisions of
law otherwise it would have prejudiced the
accused persons considering the different
defalcations from different treasuries at different
times with different documents. Whatever could
be combined has already been done. Each
defalcation would constitute an independent
offence. Thus, by no stretch, it can be held to be
in violation of Article 20(2) of the Constitution
or Section 300 Cr.P.C. Separate trials in such
cases is the very intendment of law. There is no
room to raise such a grievance. Though evidence
of general conspiracy has been adduced in cases
which have been concluded, it may be common
to all the cases but at the same time offences are
different at different places, by different accused
persons. As and when a separate offence is
committed, it becomes punishable and the
substantive charge which has to be taken is that
of the offence under the P.C. Act etc. There was
conspiracy hatched which was continuing one
and has resulted into various offences. It was
joined from time to time by different accused
persons, so whenever an offence is committed in
continuation of the conspiracy, it would be
punishable separately for different periods as
envisaged in section 212(2), obviously, there
have to be separate trials. Thus it cannot be said
to be a case of double jeopardy at all. It cannot
be said that for the same offence the accused
persons are being tried again.

50. The modus operandi being the
same would not make it a single offence when
the offences are separate. Commission of
offence pursuant to a conspiracy has to be
punished. If conspiracy is furthered into several
distinct offences there have to be sepa- rate
trials. There may be a situation where in
furtherance of gen- eral conspiracy, offences
take place in various parts of India and several
persons are killed at different times. Each trial
has to be separately held and the accused to be
punished separately for the offence committed in
furtherance of conspiracy. In case there is only
one trial for such conspiracy for separate
offences, it would enable the accused person to
go scotfree and commit number of offences
which is not the intendment of law. The concept
is of 'same offence' under Article 20(2) and
section 300 Cr.PC. In case distinct offences are
being committed there has to be inde- pendent
trial for each of such offence based on such
conspiracy and in the case of misappropriation
as statutorily mandated, there should not be
joinder of charges in one trial for more than one
year except as provided in section 219. One
general conspiracy from 1988 to 1996 has led to
various offences as such there have to be
different trials for each of such offence based
upon conspiracy in which different persons have
participated at different times at different places
for completion of the offence. What- ever could
be combined has already been done. Thus we
find no merit in the submissions made by
learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of
accused persons."

(18) Much emphasis has been laid down by
the learned Counsel for the petitioner upon the
case of Arnab Ranjan Goswami vs. Union of
India and others (supra) but that was a case
where multiple FIRs were registered arising out
of the same cause of action in different States.
Hence, it was held that filing of such multiple
FIRs 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) of the Constitution
of India, but that is not so in the present case
because in the present case involvement of
different category of person(s) holding the post
in U.P. Co-operative Bank in respect of
210 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
irregularity in recruitment of different posts has
given separate cause of action. Moreso, it is
relevant to add here that co-accused Hira Lal
Yadav has approached this Court by filing Misc.
Bench No. - 13252 of 2021 : Hira Lal Yadav Vs.
State of U.P. and others, seeking to quash Case
Crime No. 0013 of 2020, under Sections 120-B,
471, 468, 467 and 420 I.P.C., Police Station
S.I.T., Lucknow. This Court, after hearing
learned Counsel for the parties, dismissed the
aforesaid writ petition by means of order dated
30.06.2021. The writ petitioner-Ram Pravesh
Yadav has also approached this Court by filing
writ petition No. 26021 of 2020 (M/B),
challenging Case Crime No. 0013 of 2020,
under Sections 120-B, 471, 468, 467 and 420
I.P.C., Police Station S.I.T., Lucknow, which
was dismissed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court vide order dated 05.01.2021.

(19) It is pertinent to mention here that had
the separate FIRs been registered in respect of
same category then it could be said to be a case
of multiple FIRs for same offence but that is not
so in the present case as the different FIRs are
for different category of employees and for
different occasions and there is no repetition of
FIR for same occasion. 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
persons
or
containing
the
different
allegations
is
permissible.

(20) In the instant case, (1) Case Crime
No. 0013 of 2020 is relating to irregularity in
recruitment of thirty different posts in U.P. Cooperative Bank Ltd.; (2) Case Crime No. 0021
of 2021 is in respect irregularity in recruitment
of the post of Deputy Manager, Manager,
Cashier in the U.P. Co-operative Federation,
Lucknow; (3) Crime No. 022 of 2021 is relating
to irregularity in recruitment of Field Officers
and Assistant Branch Accountant in the U.P.
Gram Vikas Bank Ltd.; (4) Crime No. 0023 of
2021 is relating to irregularity in recruitment of
313 posts of Co-operative Supervisor in Uttar
Pradesh
Co-operative
Union
through
the
recruitment agency Uttar Pradesh Co-operative
Institutional Service Mandal; (5) Crime No.
0024 of 2021 is relating to irregularity in
recruitment of Senior Branch Manager, Junior
Branch Manager and Programmer-cum-Data
Entry Operator and others; (6) Crime No. 0025
of 2021 is relating to irregularity in recruitment
of 16 posts of Assistant Engineer (Civil) and two
posts of Deputy Manager (Accounts). This
shows that each F.I.R. has been registered on
account of irregularities in recruitment of
different posts.

(21) It is relevant to add here that nothing
has been pointed out to refute the submission of
counsel for the State that even the witnesses in
each of case are different. Though different FIRs
reveal that the same kind of offence has been
registered against the petitioner but they are for
the irregularities in the recruitment of different
posts. 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.

(22) Even otherwise, it is also noticed that
the first FIR i.e. Crime No.0013/2020 was
registered against the petitioner on 27.10.2020
and other five F.I.Rs i.e. 0021 of 2021, 022 of
2021, 0023 of 2021, 0024 of 2021 and 0025 of
2021, were registered against the petitioner on
21.05.2021. The investigation had continued but
at no point of time the petitioner had raised any
objection or had taken any action for clubbing of
these FIRs. According to the Counsel for the
State, the investigation of the aforesaid F.I.Rs. is
at the stage of completion and the appropriate
11 All. Rajesh Yadav & Anr. Vs. S.D.M., Teh. Milkipur, Ayodhya & Anr.
211
police report will be filed in shortwhile. The
petitioner has approached at a belated stage by
filing the present petition on 05.10.2021,
therefore, at this stage no such relief can be
granted. Now, the petitioner will have remedy to
make a prayer before the Trial Court for one trial
under Section 220 of the Cr.P.C., if the
petitioner establishes a case for the same.

(23) Considering the aforesaid, we are not
inclined to interfere in the instant writ petition.

(24) The writ petition is, accordingly,
dismissed.

(25) Costs easy.
----------
(2021)11ILR A211
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 21.10.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.

Misc. Single No. 23934 of 2021

Rajesh Yadav & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
S.D.M., Teh. Milkipur, Ayodhya & Anr.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Ajay Kumar Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Civil Law - U.P. Revenue Court Manual - The
Indian Constitution, 1950 - Article 226 & 227 -
The High Courts cannot, on the drop of a hat,
exercise its power of superintendence under
Article 227 of the Constitution but at the same
time has indicated the scope of interference
particularly in such cases where directions are
required to ensure that law is followed by
tribunals and courts or other authorities.(Para 8)
In the present case it is apparent that there is
statutory mandate that the authorities are required to
decide suit, appeal, revision etc. within statutory
period provided. Non adherence to the aforesaid
principles are clearly violative of the Statute which
would require this Court to step in and ensure that
statutory provisions are adhered to and followed by
the State authorities. Therefore this Court cannot
abdicate its duties and powers in such circumstances
merely on account of availability of alternative and
equally efficacious remedy as provided in paragraph
494 (1) of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual. (Para 13)

Writ Petition Disposed of. (E-10)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Vinod kumar Shukla Vs U.P. Ziladhikari Mankapur
Gonda & ors. Writ Petition No. 4064 (M/S) of 2021

2. Moni Singh Vs Nayab Tehsildar, Barausa, Tehsi
Jaisinghpur, Sultanpur

3. Shalini Shyam Shetty & anr. Vs Rajendra Shankar
Patil A.I.R. 2010 SCW 6387

4. L. Chandra kumar Vs U.O.I. (1997) 3 SCC 261

5. Waman Rao Vs U.O.I. (1981) 2 SCC 362

6. Krishena Kumar Vs U.O.I. (1990) 4 SCC 207

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manish Mathur, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Pandey learned
counsel for petitioner and Mr. Pradeep Kumar
Singh
learned
Additional
Chief
Standing
Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party
No.1. In view of order being passed, notices to
opposite party No.2 stand dispensed with.

2. Petition has been filed seeking following
reliefs:-

" a. Direct the opposite party no.1 to
decide the appeal under section 35(2) of U.P.
Revenue
Code,
2006
bearing
Appeal
No.0824/2020, Computerized case No. T202004230400824, Ram Chandar versus Rakesh
Kumar and others, expeditiously, within a