Arnab Goswami judgment won't apply when separate FIRs registered for same offence but in relation to separate incidents: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court recently observed that the judgments of the Supreme Court in Arnab Goswami v. State of Maharashtra, Amish Devgan v. Union of India and TT Antony v. State of Kerala would not be applicable in cases in which separate FIRs are registered involving same cognizable offence but arising out of separate incidents (Dr. Vijay Kumar Sharma v. State of UP)..A Division Bench of Justices Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Ajai Tyagi held that to attract those judgments, the FIRs should be related to the same incident."The facts involved in the case of Arnab Ranjan Goswami is also considered. It was also a case where several FIRs were out of one incident. To attract all the judgments referred by learned counsel for the petitioner, it should be one incident. Those judgments would not apply in the cases where for separate incident, may be involving in same cognizable offence, separate FIRs have been registered. The evidence in reference to each FIR would also be in reference to the individual case," the Court said. .The Court, therefore, dismissed a plea praying that after first FIR, every subsequent FIR should have been taken to be statement under Section 162 of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and police authorities should, therefore, not produce the petitioner for remand in each FIR. .The Court was hearing a matter wherein FIRs were registered against Noble Cooperative Bank Limited and other accused for allegedly cheating around 3 lakh persons to the tune of Rs. 4,000 crores.The petitioner was the Chief Executive Officer of Noble Cooperative Bank Limited which operated the accounts of investor company Garvit Innovative Promoters Limited (GIPL). GIPL was incorporated to carry out business of rental of bikes. The company had taken investments from the public for purchase of bikes to be rented out.The rental received out of it was to be paid to the investors. The investments made by various investors came into the bank account of GIPL which were in Noble Cooperative Bank.A request was then made by the GIPL to Noble Cooperative Bank to issue around 2,61,000 cheques for distribution of dividend and monthly rental to the investors.On this note, it was submitted before the Court that these cheques were issued by the bank without the knowledge of the petitioner."There was no approval by him for printing of 2,61,000 cheques for its issuance. The allegations of fraud, if any, could have been made against GIPL and the officers of the Cooperative Bank for issuance of cheques without the knowledge and permission of the petitioner." the petitioner submitted. Hundreds of FIRs were registered against the petitioner.Pursuant to the same, the petitioner was produced for remand in reference to each FIR. The petitioner contended that after first FIR, every subsequent FIRs should have been taken to be statement under Section 162 CrPC.A prayer was, therefore, made to the Police authorities not to produce the petitioner for remand in each FIR; rather subsequent FIR be taken as statement under Section 162 CrPC.In this regard, the following prayer was made:"To direct the direct the Police authorities to treat Case Crime No. 385 of 2019 as the Main Case Crime and to merge all the other Case Crimes/FIRs registered in Bike-Bot matter at PS: Dadri and elsewhere in State of UP, as statements u/s 162 of the Cr.P.C. and to merge these subsequent FIRs in main Case Crime No. 385/2019.".[Breaking] "If we don't interfere in this case today, we will walk on a path of destruction", Supreme Court grants bail to Arnab Goswami.The Court, however, noted that registration of a number of FIRs against the petitioner by different persons was in reference to their own transactions."It has been disclosed that 2,61,000 cheques were issued by the Noble Cooperative Bank Limited to various investors. It was involving huge amount. The issuance of the cheques by the bank is said to be on the instruction of the GIPL. The allegations further show transfer of the amount received from the investors leaving hardly any balance in the bank account of GIPL. The transfer of the entire amount was in the knowledge of the bank yet they issued around 2,61,000 cheques. The amount involved therein is not negligible but running in crores. The investors lodged first information report in reference to their own transaction," the Court noted. .The petitioner placed reliance on TT Antony judgment of the Supreme Court in this regard. The High Court, however, noted that in TT Antony, the second FIR came out of the first FIR. "The significance of the word “same incident” is relevant for the reason that FIRs are not out of same incident giving rise to one or more cognizable offences. It is out of separate transactions by different investors, therefore, the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of TT Antony would not be applicable to the facts of this case," the Court ruled. Similarly, Amish Devgan's was a case where several FIRs in different States were registered pursuant to a television telecast wherein anchor Amish Devgan was said to have made objectionable comments. "The broadcast was heard by many persons resulting in registration of several FIRs. The facts aforesaid show that FIRs therein were also out of the same incident," the Court said. Same was the case with Arnab Goswami judgment, the Court said. .The petition was, therefore, dismissed. .[Read order]