1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
*********

S. B. CRMINAL MISC. PETITION NO. ……………………/2023

1. SURYAKANT GUPTA SON OF SHRI SAMBHUDAYAL GUPTA, AGED

ABOUT 66 YEARS, RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO:- 4-A-29 ASHOK

SHARDA KE SAMNE, TALWANDI, DISTRICT KOTA, RAJASTHAN.

2. ANIL KUMAR SON OF SHRI BADRILAL, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,

RESIDENT OF INDRAGANDHI NAGAR, KOTA, DISTRICT KOTA,

RAJASTHAN.

3. DAMARAM MALAV SON OF SHRI PRABHULAL, AGED ABOUT 51

YEARS, RESIDENT OF BADGAON, KOTA, DISTRICT KOTA,

RAJASTHAN.

4. AKANSHA VIJAY WIFE OF HIMANSHU VIJAY, AGED ABOUT 37

YEARS, RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO:- 158A VALAM BADI, KOTA,

DISTRICT KOTA, RAJASTHAN.

5. SATYENDRA KUMAR VIJAYVARGIYE SON OF SHRI SHIVBAKSH,

AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, RESIDENT OF HOUSE N0:- 7-C-15

MAHAVEER NAGAR EXTENTION DADA BADI, KOTA, DISTRICT KOTA,

RAJASTHAN.

6. SEEMA NAYAK WIFE OF GIRIRAJ NAYAK, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,

RESIDENT OF HANUMAN MANDIR KE PASS, INDIRA GANDHI NAGAR,

KOTA, DISTRICT KOTA, RAJASTHAN.

...PETITIONER
VERSUS

1. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR;

2. ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS,

GOVERNMENT OF RAJASTHAN, SECRETARIAT, JANPATH, JAIPUR,

RAJASTHAN;
 2

3. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEAD QUARTER,

LALKOTHI, JAIPUR;

4. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, KOTA RANGE, KOTA,

RAJASTHAN.

5. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOTA CITY, DISTRICT KOTA,

RAJASTHAN;

6. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, DISTRICT BUNDI, RAJASTHAN.

.....NON-PETITIONER/ RESPONDENTS

***********

S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION UNDER SECTION 482

OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDURE, 1973

FOR CLUBBING OF SUBSEQUENT FIRST

INFORMATION REPORTs INTO FIR NO.- 04/2022

WHICH WAS REGISTERED ON 02.01.2022 AT POLICE

STATION GUMANPURA, KOTA CITY FOR THE

OFFENCES UNDER SECTION 420 AND 406 OF THE

IPC BEING THE FIRST F.I.R. REGARDING THE SAME

SUBJECT MATTER.

TO,
THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS OTHER

COMPANION JUDGES OF THE RAJASTHAN HIGH

COURT BENCH AT JAIPUR.

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR LORDSHIPS:

The humble petitioner respectfully begs to submit as follows:-

1. That the brief facts of the case are that on the basis of a written
report which was submitted by one Jintendra Singh Hada
 3

stating therein that a company was founded mainly by three

directors Namely Murli Manohar Namdev, Sanjay Kashyap, and
Hariom Suman and they instigated the investors to invest
money in their company and in return they will get huge returns
and various persons invested in the Apexa Group believing that
their investments will give them great benefits but officials of
Apexa Group misappropriated the funds for their personal uses.
On the basis of said complaint a formal an FIR No. 04/2022
came to be registered at Police Station Gumanpura, District
Kota for the offences under sections 420 and 406 of the IPC.
Certified Copy of FIR is being filed herewith and marked as
ANNEXURE-1. It is also pertinent to mention herein that
subsequently after registration of FIR No:- 04/2022 more such
FIRs came to be registered at various police stations regarding
the same subject matter, this action of the police/state
authority is completely arbitrary in nature.The instant petition
is being filed seeking balance of fundamental rights as provided
under constitution of India and Criminal Procedure code
thereby maintaining a just balance holding that sweeping power
of investigation does not warrant subjecting a citizen each time
to fresh investigation by the Police in respect of the same
incidence or concurring incidents relating to the same act with
the main frivolous First Information Report being FIR No.-
04/2022 Police Station Gumanpura, Kota City and it is also
important to mention herein that Fir was logged at the instance
of the Superintendent of Police, Kota in order to embroil the
petitioners in a completely false and fabricated criminal cases
registered in relation of the same criminal act and thrusting the
multiple criminal investigation as well as trial. further, the
present Petition also attempt to invoke the extraordinary
jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court to bring to its notice that there
is more than 100 FIRs to the best of the Knowledge of the
Petitioners which are registered, in which the main FIR was
logged at the instance of the Police so as to brow beat the
petitioners and make them suffer to the illegality caused by
 4

multiple FIR’s and indirectly punishing the petitioners before

even the commencement of the trial. That high handedness of
the Police Authorities is glaring from the single facts that many
subsequent FIR’s are logged with the same police station.
Petitioners are made accused in this case by the Police
Authorities only to satisfy their illegal and arbitrary action.
Certified copy of FIR N.- 04/2022 dated 02.01.202. Photocopy
of subsequent FIRs collectively is being filed herewith for
kind perusal of the Hon’ble court as ANNEXURE -2.

2. That the registering FIRs one after another is totally unjust and
violates the fundamental rights as well as great violation of
procedure establish by law. the list of the FIRs which have been
registered related to the same cause of actin are mentioned as
follows:-
S. FIR No. OFFENCES UNDER POLICE
No. AND SECTIONS OF IPC STATION
DATES
1. 04/2022 420 AND 406 OF IPC GUMANPURA
02.01.2022
05/2022 GUMANPURA
2. 02.01.2022 420 AND 406 OF IPC

11/2022 420 AND 406 OF IPC GUMANPURA

3. 04.01.2022

4. 10/2022 420, 406 AND 120B OF IPC KUNHADI

10.01.2022
5. 14/2022 420, 406 AND 120B OF IPC KUNHADI
12.01.2022

13/2022 420, 406 AND 120B OF IPC

6. JAWAHARNAGAR
20.01.2022
0118/2022 420, 406 AND 120B OF IPC
7. GUMANPURA
02.03.2022
8. 0120/2022 420,406,467,468,471 AND GUMANPURA
03.03.2022 120-B OF IPC
9. 0121/2022 420,406,467,468,471 AND GUMANPURA
03.03.2022 120-B OF IPC
 5

10. 0122/2022 420,406,467,468,471 AND GUMANPURA

03.03.2022 120-B OF IPC
11. 0067/2022 420,406,467,468,471 AND BHEEMGANJ
05.03.2022 120-B OF IPC MANDI
12. 0131/2022 420,406 AND 120-B OF IPC GUMANPURA
09.03.2022
13. 0132/2022 420,406 AND 120-B OF IPC GUMANPURA
10.03.2022
14. 0135/2022 406 AND 420 OF IPC GUMANPURA
11.03.2022
15. 0136/2022 406 AND 420 OF IPC GUMANPURA
11.03.2022
16. 0146/2022 406 , 120-B AND 420 OF IPC GUMANPURA
16.03.2022

17. 0147/2022 406 , 120-B AND 420 OF IPC GUMANPURA

16.03.2022
18. 0148/2022 406 , 120-B AND 420 OF IPC GUMANPURA
21.03.2022
19. 0150/2022 406 , 120-B AND 420 OF IPC GUMANPURA
22.03.2022
20. 0151/2022 406 , 120-B AND 420 OF IPC GUMANPURA
22.03.2022
21. 0103/2022 420 AND 406 OF IPC BHEEMGANJ
12.04.2022 MANDI
22. 0190/2022 406 , 120-B AND 420 OF IPC GUMANPURA
27.04.2022
23. 0191/2022 406 , 120-B AND 420 OF IPC GUMANPURA
27.04.2022
24. 0195/2022 420,406,469,468,471 AND GUMANPURA
29.04.2022 120-B OF IPC
25. 0196/2022 420,406,467,468,471 AND GUMANPURA
29.04.2022 120-B OF IPC
26. 0202/2022 420 AND 406 OF IPC GUMANPURA
03.05.2022
 6

27. 0212/2022 420, 120-B AND 406 OF IPC GUMANPURA

08.05.2022
28. 0217/2022 420, 406, 383 AND 120-B OF GUMANPURA
09.05.2022 IPC
29. 0149/2022 420,419,467,468,471 AND NAYAPURA
17.05.2022 120-B OF IPC
30. 0230/2022 420, 120-B AND 406 OF IPC GUMANPURA
20.05.2022

31. 0180/2022 384,420,406,467,468, R K PURAM

20.05.2022 471AND120-B OF IPC
32. 0169/2022 420, 120-B AND 406 OF IPC NAYAPURA
25.05.2022
33. 0285/2022 420,406,467,468,471 AND GUMANPURA
08.06.2022 120-B OF IPC
34. 0245/2022 420,406,467,468,471 AND GUMANPURA
26.05.2022 120-B OF IPC
35. 0246/2022 420,406,467,468,471 AND GUMANPURA
26.05.2022 120-B OF IPC
36. 0249/2022 420,406,467,468,471 AND GUMANPURA
27.05.2022 120-B OF IPC
37. 0219/2022 420,406, AND 120-B OF IPC MAHAVEER
01.06.2022 NAGAR
38. 0260/2022 420,406,467,468,471 AND GUMANPURA
01.06.2022 120-B OF IPC
39. 0262/2022 420,406,467,468,471 AND GUMANPURA
01.06.2022 120-B OF IPC
0263/2022 420,406,467,468,471 AND GUMANPURA
40.
02.06.2022 120-B OF IPC
0264/2022 420,406,467,468,471 AND GUMANPURA
41.
02.06.2022 120-B OF IPC
0268/2022 420,406,467,468,471 AND GUMANPURA
42.
04.06.2022 120-B OF IPC
0269/2022 420,406,467,468,471 AND GUMANPURA
43.
04.06.2022 120-B OF IPC
 7

0270/2022 420,406,467,468,471 AND GUMANPURA

44.
04.06.2022 120-B OF IPC
0273/2022 420,406,467,468,471 AND GUMANPURA
45.
05.06.2022 120-B OF IPC
0275/2022 420,406,467,468,471 AND GUMANPURA
46.
06.06.2022 120-B OF IPC
0276/2022 420,406,467,468,471 AND GUMANPURA
47.
06.06.2022 120-B OF IPC
0278/2022 420,406 AND 120-B OF IPC GUMANPURA
48.
06.06.2022
0282/2022 420,406,467,468,471 AND GUMANPURA
49.
07.06.2022 120-B OF IPC
0287/2022 420,406,467,468,471 AND GUMANPURA
50.
09.06.2022 120-B OF IPC
0299/2022 420,406,467,468,471 AND GUMANPURA
51.
13.06.2022 120-B OF IPC
0303/2022 420,406,467,468,471 AND GUMANPURA
52.
14.06.2022 120-B OF IPC
0305/2022 420,406,467,468,471 AND GUMANPURA
53.
14.06.2022 120-B OF IPC
0306/2022 420,406,467,468,471 AND GUMANPURA
54.
14.06.2022 120-B OF IPC
0307/2022 420,406,467,468,471 AND GUMANPURA
55.
15.06.2022 120-B OF IPC
0308/2022 420,406,467,468,471 AND GUMANPURA
56.
16.06.2022 120-B OF IPC
0311/2022 420,406,467,468,471 AND GUMANPURA
57.
17.06.2022 120-B OF IPC
0224/2022 420, AND 406 OF IPC R K PURAM
58.
17.06.2022
0319/2022 420,406,467,468,471 AND GUMANPURA
59.
23.06.2022 120-B OF IPC
0244/2022 420,406, AND 120-B OF IPC RAILWAY
60.
23.06.2022 COLONY
 8

0197/2022 420,406,467,468,471 AND BORKHERA

61.
01.07.2022 120-B OF IPC
0342/2022 420,406,467,468,471 AND GUMANPURA
62.
07.07.2022 120-B OF IPC
63. 0182/2022 420 AND 406 OF IPC VIGHYAN NAGAR
08.07.2022
0348/2022 420,406,467,468,471 AND GUMANPURA
64.
09.07.2022 120-B OF IPC
0349/2022 420,406,467,468,471 AND GUMANPURA
65.
09.07.2022 120-B OF IPC
0353/2022 420,406,467,468,471 AND GUMANPURA
66.
11.07.2022 120-B OF IPC
0354/2022 420,406,467,468,471 AND GUMANPURA
67.
12.07.2022 120-B OF IPC
0239/2022 420,406,467 AND 471 OF IPC NAYAPURA
68.
14.07.2022
0363/2022 420,406,467,468,471 AND GUMANPURA
69.
15.07.2022 120-B OF IPC
0368/2022 420,406,467,468,471 AND GUMANPURA
70.
19.07.2022 120-B OF IPC
0374/2022 420,406,467,468,471 AND GUMANPURA
71.
22.07.2022 120-B OF IPC
0375/2022 420,406,467,468, AND 471 GUMANPURA
72.
22.07.2022 OF IPC
0378/2022 420,406,467,468,471 AND GUMANPURA
73.
22.07.2022 120-B OF IPC
0283/2022 420,406 AND 120-B OF IPC RAILWAY
74.
25.07.2022 COLONY
0386/2022 420,406,467,468,471 AND GUMANPURA
75.
30.07.2022 120-B OF IPC
0387/2022 420,406,467,468,471 AND GUMANPURA
76.
30.07.2022 120-B OF IPC
0389/2022 420,406,467,468,471 AND GUMANPURA
77.
31.07.2022 120-B OF IPC
 9

0393/2022 420,406,467,468,471 AND GUMANPURA

78.
03.08.2022 120-B OF IPC
79. 0332/2022 420 AND406 OF IPC ANANTPUR
06.08.2022
0400/2022 420, AND 406 OF IPC GUMANPURA
80.
08.08.2022
0402/2022 420,406,467,468,471 AND GUMANPURA
81.
08.08.2022 120-B OF IPC
0410/2022 420,406,467,468,471 AND GUMANPURA
82.
11.08.2022 120-B OF IPC
0302/2022 420, AND 406 OF IPC RAILWAY
83.
12.08.2022 COLONY

0420/2022 420,406,467,468, AND 471 GUMANPURA

84.
17.08.2022 OF IPC
0313/2022 420,120-B, AND 406 OF IPC RAILWAY
85.
19.08.2022 COLONY
0424/2022 420,406,467,468,471 AND GUMANPURA
86.
19.08.2022 120-B OF IPC
0315/2022 420, AND 406 OF IPC RAILWAY
87.
21.08.2022 COLONY
0433/2022 420,406,467,468,471 AND GUMANPURA
88.
25.08.2022 120-B OF IPC
0449/2022 420,406 AND 120-B OF IPC GUMANPURA
89.
31.08.2022
0337/2022 420, AND 406 OF IPC RAILWAY
90.
06.09.2022 COLONY
0296/2022 420,406,467,468,471 AND BORKHERA
91.
10.09.2022 120-B OF IPC
0476/2022 420, AND 406 OF IPC GUMANPURA
92.
15.09.2022
0480/2022 420,406,467,468,471 AND GUMANPURA
93.
17.09.2022 120-B OF IPC
0482/2022 420,406,467,468,471 AND GUMANPURA
94.
18.09.2022 120-B OF IPC
 10

0485/2022 420,406 AND 120-B OF IPC GUMANPURA

95.
19.09.2022
0358/2022 420, AND 406 OF IPC R K PURAM
96.
22.09.2022
0494/2022 420,406,467,468,471 AND GUMANPURA
97.
22.09.2022 120-B OF IPC

0514/2022 420,406,467,468,471 AND GUMANPURA

98.
07.10.2022 120-B OF IPC
0517/2022 420,406,467,468,471 AND GUMANPURA
99.
08.10.2022 120-B OF IPC
0535/2022 420,406,468,471 AND 120-B GUMANPURA
100.
20.10.2022 OF IPC
0562/2022 420,406 AND 120-B OF IPC KUNHADI
101.
22.10.2022
0549/2022 420 AND 406 OF IPC GUMANPURA
102.
31.10.2022
0551/2022 420,406,467,468,469,470,471 GUMANPURA
103.
03.11.2022 AND 120-B OF IPC
0572/2022 420,406,467,468,471 AND GUMANPURA
104.
15.11.2022 120-B OF IPC
0606/2022 420,406, 468,471 AND 120-B GUMANPURA
105.
10.12.2022 OF IPC
0302/2022 420, AND 406 OF IPC BHEEMGANJ
106.
12.12.2022 MANDI
0062/2023 420,406,467, 468,471 AND GUMANPURA
107.
20.01.2022 120-B OF IPC
0097/2023 420,406,467, 468,471 AND GUMANPURA
108.
08.02.2022 120-B OF IPC
0098/2023 420,406,467, 468,471 AND GUMANPURA
109.
20.01.2022 120-B OF IPC
0125/2023 420,406,467, 468,471 AND GUMANPURA
110.
25.01.2022 120-B OF IPC
0071/2022 420 AND 406 OF IPC NANWA, BUNDI
111.
9.02.2022
 11

393/2022 420 AND 406 IPC RAILWAY

112.
20.10.2022 COLONY
393/2022 420, 406, 467, 468, 477 AND KUNHADI
113.
22.07.2022 120B OF IPC

420, 406, 467, 468, 471 AND SADAR BUNDI,

114.
467/2022 120B OF IPC AND SECTION BUNDI
12.09.2022 3, 4, 5, AND 6 OF CHIT FUND
ACT
195/2022 420, 406 AND 120B BHIMGANJ
115.
2.08.2022 MANDI
246/2022 420 AND 406 OF IPC BHIMGANJ
116.
27.09.2022 MANDI
224/2022 420, 406 AND 120B OF IPC GUMANPURA
117.
17.05.2022

1. That the investigation is an integral part of criminal justice

system, and any irregular or fracture in investigation goes to the
root of the matter. That the arrest of the petitioner was only
bestow to add another feast and gain popular social support by
the investigation agency is ample clear from the working style
adopted by the Police Authorities. That the petitioners were made
accused despite being no iota of evidence available which can
suggest the involvement of the petitioners in the aforesaid
offence. Moreover, petitioners have been made accused in this
case solely on the basis of the statements of the co-accused,
which are not admissible in the eyes of law.

2. That the subsequent FIRs filed against the petitioner clearly

shows the mala fide intention on part of the Police Authorities as
subsequent FIRs are nothing more than just improvement made
in original FIR, this view had been confirmed by the Hon’blr Apex
Court in the judgement of Upkar Singh, it may be useful to refer
to the following excerpt from Upkar Singh: -
 12

In our opinion, this Court in that case only held that any
further complaint by the same complainant or others
against the same accused, subsequent to the registration
of a case, is prohibited under the Code because an
investigation in this regard would have already started
and further complaint against the same accused will
amount to an improvement on the facts mentioned in the
original complaint, hence will be prohibited under Section
162 of the Code.

3. That registration of second or Subsequent FIR bases on same set

of facts is completely violative of the fundamental rights and the
impermissibility of registering the second or subsequent FIR is
to protect the fundamental right of an accused against double
jeopardy, to maintain the rule of fair investigation and to not
allow the police to abuse their investigative powers under CrPC.
These three-fold safeguards prevent registration of the second
FIR as held in Anju Chaudhary v. the State of UP (2012).

4. That the subsequent FIRs registered for the same offence or

transaction has to go through the test of sameness as the
Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of judgments established the test
of sameness which means that unless in both the two cases,
where the first and second FIR is registered respectively, the
FIRs appear to be substantially different from each other such
as in facts and circumstances, the second FIR cannot be filed.
This means that the facts and circumstances giving rise to the
two FIRs must be different, or the offence committed in the two
must be different, or the person accused of committing the
offence is different. Only then, the second FIR is permissible.

5. That the action of the Police Authorities of lodging multiple FIRs

for the same cause of action or offence is completely perverse,
illegal, abuse of power and against the well settled principle of
law that filing of fresh FIR for the same offence for which a FIR
has already been registered earlier and is under investigation
and the Registering multiple FIRs is contrary to the spirit of
 13

Section 154 of the Code, As per Sections 154 to 157, 162, 169,
170 and 173 only the earliest information as per Section 154 is
relevant, there can be no second FIR, nor can there be a fresh
investigation on receiving new information on the same
transaction. In Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v CBI and
another [2013 (6) SCC 348] a second FIR on same occurrence
is held to be violative of Article 21 of the constitution and
upheld the “consequence test” to determine if offences are to be
treated as part of same offence- if allegation that is a part of the
second FIR follows or arises as a consequence of the offence in
the first, the offences in both the FIRs are same and hence, the
second FIR will be impermissible.

6. That the principal of non-registration of subsequent FIRs on

similar facts has been elaborated in detail by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in the judgement of T.T. Antony Vs State Of Kerala
[(2001) 6 SCC 181] wherein it has been held that:

“There can be no second F.I.R. and consequently there can be

no fresh investigation on receipt of every subsequent
information in respect of the same cognizable offence or the
same occurrence or incident giving rise to one or more
cognizable offences. On receipt of information about a
cognizable offence or an incident giving rise to a cognizable
offence or offences and on entering the F.I.R. in the station
house diary, the officer in charge of a 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 as provided in
Section 173 of the Cr.P.C.”

Therefore, principle enumerated above applies in the present

case as Number of FIRs have been logged on same facts and
footing, which clearly shows arbitrariness and mala fide
intention of investigation agency and in the said FIR the
investigation agency not only charged the petitioner liable for
 14

the offences under section 406 and 420 of the IPC and on the
pretext of the investigation in one case to another investigation
agency, instead of conducting the fair investigation agency had
kept petitioners in custody since long and that the petitioners
were first arrested in aforesaid offence and thereafter
subsequently investigation agency is taking petitioners in
custody in multiple FIRs and making them accused after
conducting so called fair investigation, investigation agency
carrying out this arbitrary action just to gain popularity and
this action of investigation agency is completely violative of
personal liberty of the petitioners.

7. That now it is well settled law and Hon’ble Apex court in various
judgment has held that multiplicity of FIRs related to same set
of facts should not be permitted and The question is whether
this trend of harassment by making the accused run from one
State to another and from one Court to another is to be
countered seriously and recently in the case of Radhey Shyam
V. State of Haryana court opined that “we deem it appropriate
in exercise of power under Article 142 of the Constitution of
India, to direct clubbing of all the FIRs, which can proceed
together for one trial as far as possible, as we are of the opinion
that multiplicity of the proceedings will not be in the larger
public interest”.

8. That FIRs lodged with mala fide intention and it is duty of

investigation agency to scrutinize the information or complained
before registering the FIRs and in the present case at hand
frivolous FIRs have been filed against the petitioner. Apex court
in recent judgments has strongly opined that vexatious action
shall not be promoted and such vexatious actions shall be
suppressed at very begging. In the recent Judgement of
Krishna Lal Chawla v. State of U.P., 2021 SCC OnLine SC
191 court opined that “Curtailing vexatious litigation is a crucial
step towards a more effective justice system” and similarly in the
case of Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. CBI, (2013) 6 SCC
 15

348 it was held that “Permitting multiple complaints by the same

party in respect of the same incident, whether it involves a
cognizable or private complaint offence, will lead to the accused
being entangled in numerous criminal proceedings. As such, he
would be forced to keep surrendering his liberty and precious
time before the police and the Courts…” and in the case of Arnab
Ranjan Goswami Vs Union of India and Others [(2020) 14
SCC 51] it has been held that “The need to ensure that the
criminal process does not assume the character of a vexatious
exercise by the institution of multifarious complaints founded on
the same cause in multiple States”. and in the case of Subrata
Roy Sahara v. Union of India, (2014) 8 SCC 470 Apex Court
observed and explained the harassment which persons face in
case of multiplicity of litigation and the Apex Court observed
that “…One needs to keep in mind, that in the process of
litigation, there is an innocent sufferer on the other side, of every
irresponsible and senseless claim. He suffers long drawn anxious
periods of nervousness and restlessness, whilst the litigation is
pending, without any fault on his part. He pays for the litigation,
from out of his savings (or out of his borrowings), worrying that
the other side may trick him into defeat, for no fault of his. He
spends invaluable time briefing counsel and preparing them for
his claim. Time which he should have spent at work, or with his
family, is lost, for no fault of his…”

9. That the petitioners made accused without any involvement of

the petitioners, petitioners are well reputed and professional
persons and that the petitioners no.- 1 to 3 were not aware
about the said incident unless they got arrested and nor
petitioner no.- 4 and 5 are involved in this case in any manner .
That before the arbitrary arrest of the petitioners no.- 1 to 3,
they were under the impression that they are victim of the
failure of the Apexa Group, but instead of doing fair
investigation police team arrested the petitioners no.- 1 to 3
without any cogent reason just to get applauds from the senior
officers and to gain popularity. That from the bare perusal of the
 16

FIR NO.- 04/2022 is clear that Petitioners were made accused

with mala fide intention, this very facts is amble enough to raise
serious questions on actions of investigation agency.

10. That the petitioner No.- 1 to 3 are in judicial custody since long
and that subsequently taking petitioners under custody on
pretext of investigation is highly illegal and violative of
fundamental rights. The action of investigation agency will harm
the reputation of the petitioners and this action of police agency
will affect their reputation and job prospect of the petitioners
and also petitioner’s families are facing great financial hardship
since the arrest of the petitioners.

11. That the petitioner 4 to 6 also implicated in this case falsely

without any cogent reason just to harass them and all the
petitioners were made accused just to lower down their
reputation and to vindicate their honor. The action of
authorities is nothing but a tool adopted to harass the
petitioners and grab money from them in garb of the
investigation.

12. That therefore upon such process the petitioners are left with no
other efficacious alternative remedy of facing arbitrary and
illegal harassment by the Police Authority except to present this
petition challenging the illegal action of the police in registering
subsequent FIRs for offences arising out of same cause of action
or transaction and illegal detention of the petitioner and for
consolidation of all FIRs against the petitioners on following
amongst other grounds:-

GROUNDS

A. Because registering multiple FIRs against the Petitioner for

the same cause of action emanating delay in repayment to
members of Society is violative of fundamental rights under
Article 14, 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India since the
same relate to alleged offence in respect of which FIR
04/2022, Police Station Gumanpura had already been
 17

registered. The investigation agency under the hands of the

senior officials of Police involved in the matter registered
several FIRs on identical facts and under the garb of frivolous
FIRs kept the Petitioner in Jail and intends to keep him in
jail for further considerable time, so that the illegal motives
could be fulfilled.

B. Because it has been time and again held by the Hon'ble Apex
Court that, “In case of a subsequent FIR, the court has to
examine the facts and circumstances giving rise to both the
FIRs and the test of the 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
answer is in the affirmative, the second FIR is liable to be
quashed”.

C. Because for the self-same offence arising out of delay in

repayment to members of Apexa Group, the Police authorities
which in similar circumstances hold the situation to be Civil
in Nature are registering the multiple FIRs to make the
situation difficult for the Petitioners. Further it is also
important to note that in the matter when on the same set of
facts the matter is registered and all subsequent matters can
be clubbed for investigation and the same would then make
the investigation as well as the process for the courts, Police
authorities also difficult. Also, such practice is highly
deprecated by Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision of Amit
Bhai Shah where the subsequent FIRs were quashed on such
set of facts holding, “Administering Criminal justice is a two-
end process, where guarding the ensured rights of the
accused under Constitution is as imperative as ensuring
justice to the victim, It is definitely a daunting task but
equally a compelling responsibility vested on the court of law
to protect and shield the rights of both. Thus, a just balance
between the fundamental rights of the accused guaranteed
 18

under the Constitution and the expansive power of the Police

to investigate a cognizable offence has to be struck by the
court. Accordingly, the sweeping power of investigation does
not warrant subjecting a citizen each time to fresh
investigation by the Police in respect of the same incident,
giving rise to one or more cognizable offences. As a
consequence, in our view this is a fit case for quashing the
second F.I.R to meet the ends of justice.”

D. Because under the identical facts in case of Satinder Singh

Bhasin’s Case the prosecution was directed not to arrest the
Petitioner therein after the grant of Bail by the Hon'ble Apex
Court whereas in the present case in identical FIR filed by
the Complainant's at the behest of police, the Petitioner is not
only being arrested but also being harassed by interrogating
which is completely unrelated to the investigation of the
accusations mentioned in the FIR but to serve the agendas of
the officials of Police.

E. Because in the interest of ensuring the fair administration of

criminal justice, the order which is intended to be passed
should present a balance between the following governing
principles:

(i) The need to ensure that the criminal process does not
assume the character of a vexatious exercise by the
institution of multifarious complaints founded on the
same cause in multiple places/States;

(ii) The need for the law to protect journalistic freedom

within the, ambit of Article 19(1)(a) of the
Constitution;

(iii) The requirement that recourse be taken to the

remedies available to every citizen in accordance with
the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973;
 19

(iv) Ensuring that in order to enable the citizen to pursue

legal remedies, a protection of personal liberty against
coercive steps be granted for a limited duration in the
meantime;

(v) Assuaging the apprehension of the Petitioner of a

threat to his safety” and the safety of his business
establishment.

F. Because the action of the Police authorities have indulged in

abuse of the process and misuse of the powers granted to
them under the Criminal Procedure Code and therefore liable
to be corrected qua Petitioner.

G. Because it is pertinent to note that the interest of multiple

members of the society is at stake. That Petitioner being
himself! Suffered the failure of the Apexa Group is helpless,
but on contrary is being scapegoat in the matter, just only for
applaud of the public.

H. Because in case on the bare reading of the contents of

complaint dated 02.01.2021 were not even known to the
Petitioner before the illegal by the Police Authorities. That
before the sudden arrest of the Petitioner, he was under the
impression that he is sufferer of the failure of the Apexa
Group, but investigation agency only to receive the applaud
of the people have arrested the Petitioner without any cogent
reasons. The Complaint was pertaining to the non-payment
of the interest and principle amount and alleged that the
amounts invested by him, were instead used for the personal
spendings of the some of the directors. That the other
directors who are arraigned in as accused are only investor in
the group and has no control whatsoever over the fundings
and managements of the investment. That it is apposite to
mention here that on bare reading of the first FIR
No.04/2022, it is abundantly clear, that allegedly many
members have beers estopped of their investments by some
 20

directors; hence it is safe to mention that the investigating

agency was not unknown to the alleged fraud upon other
investors and directors. Further where the investigation is
still going on, such investigation be transferred to such
investigation officer who is in charge of investigation of FIR
No. 04.2022 upon which all FIRs shall be investigated by a
single investigating officer and trial shall also be at a single
Court.
I. That other ground would be urged at the time of hearing of
the case.

PRAYER

It is, therefore, humbly prayed that your Lordships

may very graciously be pleased to accept and allow this Criminal
Misc. petition and it is most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble
Court may kindly be pleased: -

a) To direct the Police Authorities not to register further

FIRs against the present Petitioners arising out of the
same cause of action being delay in repayment of dues/
interest to the members of Apexa Group.

b) To direct the Police Authority not to arrest the

petitioners in the subsequent FIRs which has been
registered at various Police Station.

c) To direct the police Authorities not to arrest Petitioner

No.- 4 to 6 in any of the above mentioned FIRs logged
at various police stations regarding the Apexa Group.

d) To direct the Respondent to carry on the investigation

by way of consolidation of all complaints arising out of
the same set of facts and to merge all the FIRs
subsequent to FIR No. 04/2022 in relation to the
offences mentioned therein, including that of delay in
repayment of dues to the members of Apexa Group and
 21

the same may please be investigated by one

investigating officer.

e) To declare the action of the Police Authorities as illegal

and arbitrary as suitable action be taken against
defaulting officers.

f) To direct consolidated single trial in all the FIRs

emanating in the case of FIR No.04/2022 towards non-
payment of outstanding, dues/interest. And further in
case where chargesheet has been filed, such trials to
transfer to concerned magistrate of FIR No. 04/2022, in
cases where charge sheet has not been filed
consolidation of investigation by the investigating officer
of FIR NO.- 04/2022 Registered at Police Station
Gumasnpura, Kota.

Any other order which your Lordships may deems

fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Your Lordships humble petitioner
Through his Counsels

RAJENDRA SINGH TANWAR

Advocate

Notes:-

1. That no such S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition has been filed

previously in this matter before this Hon’ble Court.

2. That it has typed by our private steno in our office who is not an
employee of this Hon’ble Court.

3. That as the pie papers are not readily available hence typed on
stout papers.

4. That this matter pertains to Jaipur Jurisdiction.

Counsels for the petitioner

 22

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
*********

S. B. CRIMINAL STAY APPLICATION NO………/2023

IN

S. B. CRMINAL MISC. PETITION NO. ……………………/2023

1. SURYAKANT GUPTA SON OF SHRI SAMBHUDAYAL GUPTA, AGED

ABOUT 66 YEARS, RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO:- 4-A-29 ASHOK
SHARDA KE SAMNE, TALWANDI, DISTRICT KOTA, RAJASTHAN.
2. ANIL KUMAR SON OF SHRI BADRILAL, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF INDRAGANDHI NAGAR, KOTA, DISTRICT KOTA,
RAJASTHAN.
3. DAMARAM MALAV SON OF SHRI PRABHULAL, AGED ABOUT 51
YEARS, RESIDENT OF BADGAON, KOTA, DISTRICT KOTA,
RAJASTHAN.
4. AKANSHA VIJAY WIFE OF HIMANSHU VIJAY, AGED ABOUT 37
YEARS, RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO:- 158A VALAM BADI, KOTA,
DISTRICT KOTA, RAJASTHAN.
5. SATYENDRA KUMAR VIJAYVARGIYE SON OF SHRI SHIVBAKSH,
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, RESIDENT OF HOUSE N0:- 7-C-15
MAHAVEER NAGAR EXTENTION DADA BADI, KOTA, DISTRICT KOTA,
RAJASTHAN.
6. SEEMA NAYAK WIFE OF GIRIRAJ NAYAK, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF HANUMAN MANDIR KE PASS, INDIRA GANDHI NAGAR,
KOTA, DISTRICT KOTA, RAJASTHAN.

...PETITIONER
VERSUS

1. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR;

2. ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS,

GOVERNMENT OF RAJASTHAN, SECRETARIAT, JANPATH, JAIPUR,
RAJASTHAN;

3. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEAD QUARTER,

LALKOTHI, JAIPUR;

4. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, KOTA RANGE, KOTA,

RAJASTHAN.
 23

5. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOTA CITY, DISTRICT KOTA,

RAJASTHAN;

6. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, DISTRICT BUNDI, RAJASTHAN.

.....NON-PETITIONER/ RESPONDENTS

***********

S.B.CRIMINAL MISC. STAY APPLICATION UNDER

SECTION 482 CR.P.C
TO,
THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS OTHER
COMPANION JUDGES OF THE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
BENCH AT JAIPUR.

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR LORDSHIPS:

The humble petitioner respectfully begs to submit as under:-

1. That petitioner has this day filed a criminal misc. petition

before this Hon’ble Court and from the grounds taken in
the annexed petition, it is evident that the petitioner has
got strong prima facie case and the criminal petition will be
allowed.

2. That the grounds of the criminal misc. petition may also be

treated as part of the stay application.

3. That the disposal of the criminal petition is likely to take

considerable time and it is in the interest of justice that the
further investigation and other consequential proceedings
arising out of FIR No.- 04/2022 lodged at Police Station
Gumanpura, District Kota and in other subsequent FIRs
registered at various Police Station during the pendency of
this petition.

4. That the balance of convenience also lies in favour of the

petitioners, petitioners will suffer irreparable loss if the
 24

further investigation is not stayed during the pendency of

the criminal misc. petition.

5. That investigation agency is bent upon to produce charge

sheet in the court under influence of purchasers, if once
charge sheet will be submitted then this petition will
become infructuous.

PRAYER

It is, therefore, prayed that your lordships may

very graciously be pleased to accept this stay application
and may be further pleased stay the further consequential
proceedings arising out of FIR No.- 04/2022 lodged at
Police Station Gumanpura, District Kota and in other
subsequent FIRs registered at various Police Station during
the pendency of this petition.

Any other appropriate order or directions which

this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts
and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favor
of the petitioner.
Humble Petitioner
Through counsel

RAJENDRA SINGH TANWAR

Advocate
Notes:-
1. That no such stay application has been filed previously
before this Hon’ble Court.
2. That a copy of this application is given to the Public
Prosecutor.
3. That as pie papers were not readily available hence stout
papers have been used.
4. That it has been typed by my private steno.
5. That present dispute pertains to jurisdiction of Hon’ble High
court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench, Jaipur.

Counsel for the Petitioner

 25

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTAN

AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
****************

S. B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO.______/2023

SURYAKANT GUPTA AND ANOTHERS

VERSUS
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS

INDEX

S.NO. PARTICULAR PAGE NO.

1. MEMO OF THE CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION TO

2. MEMO OF STAY APPLICATION TO

DOCUMENTS

ANNEX.1: CERTIFIED COPY OF FIR NO. 04/2022 TO

ANNEX. 2. PHOTOCOPY OF SUBSEQUENT FIRs TO

__________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS

 26

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTAN

AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
*********

S. B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO.______/2023

SURYAKANT GUPTA AND ANOTHERS

VERSUS
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS

SYNOPSIS
 The brief facts of the case are that on the basis of a
written report which was submitted by one Jintendra
Singh Hada stating therein that a company was
founded mainly by three directors Namely Murli
Manohar Namdev, Sanjay Kashyap, and Hariom Suman
and they instigated the investors to invest money in
their company and in return they will get huge returns
and various persons invested in the Apexa Group
believing that their investments will give them great
benefits but officials of Apexa Group misappropriated
the funds for their personal uses. On the basis of said
complaint a formal an FIR No. 04/2022 came to be
registered at Police Station Gumanpura, District Kota
for the offences under sections 420 and 406 of the IPC.
It is also pertinent to mention herein that subsequently
after registration of FIR No:- 04/2022 more such FIRs
came to be registered at various police stations
regarding the same subject matter, this action of the
police/state authority is completely arbitrary in
nature.The instant petition is being filed seeking
balance of fundamental rights as provided under
constitution of India and Criminal Procedure code
thereby maintaining a just balance holding that
sweeping power of investigation does not warrant
subjecting a citizen each time to fresh investigation by
the Police in respect of the same incidence or
 27

concurring incidents relating to the same act with the

main frivolous First Information Report being FIR No.-
04/2022 Police Station Gumanpura, Kota City and it is
also important to mention herein that Fir was logged at
the instance of the Superintendent of Police, Kota in
order to embroil the petitioners in a completely false
and fabricated criminal cases registered in relation of
the same criminal act and thrusting the multiple
criminal investigation as well as trial. further, the
present Petition also attempt to invoke the
extraordinary jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court to bring
to its notice that there is more than 100 FIRs to the
best of the Knowledge of the Petitioners which are
registered, in which the main FIR was logged at the
instance of the Police so as to brow beat the petitioners
and make them suffer to the illegality caused by
multiple FIR’s and indirectly punishing the petitioners
before even the commencement of the trial. That high
handedness of the Police Authorities is glaring from the
single facts that many subsequent FIR’s are logged with
the same police station. Petitioners are made accused in
this case by the Police Authorities only to satisfy their
illegal and arbitrary action. Certified copy of FIR N.-
04/2022 dated 02.01.202.
 That the investigation is an integral part of criminal
justice system, and any irregular or fracture in
investigation goes to the root of the matter. That the
arrest of the petitioner was only bestow to add another
feast and gain popular social support by the
investigation agency is ample clear from the working
style adopted by the Police Authorities. That despite
being no iota of evidence available which can suggest
the involvement of the petitioners in the aforesaid
offence. Moreover, petitioners have been made accused
 28

in this case solely on the basis of the statements of the

co-accused, which are not admissible in the eyes of law.

Counsels for the petitioners