Summary
The High Court quashed five FIRs concerning alleged fraud in cooperative housing societies as repetitions of an earlier FIR. The Supreme Court found material differences in the societies, transactions and accounts, restored separate investigations and directed eventual consolidation of the cases for trial before one competent court.
Issues
- Whether overlap in allegations justified quashing five FIRs as duplicates of the first.
- What limits govern factual scrutiny during investigation under Section482.
- How the resulting cases should be investigated and tried.
Held
- The societies, members, land transactions, purchasers, dates, consideration and accounting records differed. Some overlap arising from similar business and common accused did not establish that one FIR exhausted the others. Whether there was a single larger conspiracy or separate conspiracies required investigation. (¶ 20–23)
- The High Court could not conduct an appellate-style detailed factual examination while investigations remained incomplete. Manifestly absurd allegations or a truly repeated FIR may justify intervention in an appropriate case; the material distinctions here defeated the duplication challenge. No finding of guilt followed. (¶¶ 17–18, 24–29, 31)
- All six FIRs were held legal and proper for investigation. Investigations were to be expedited and charge-sheets filed according to law; once cases reached the courts, they were to be clubbed and tried before one competent court. Parties could seek High Court orders for consolidation and transfer at the appropriate stage. (¶ 32–35)
Result
Appeals allowed; High Court judgment set aside and accused persons’ Section482 applications dismissed. Separate FIR investigations restored with eventual joint trial directions; connected special leave petitions disposed of.