MP High Court Dismisses Plea To Consolidate Cheating FIRs Against Adarsh Credit Co-operative; Imposes ₹5,000 Cost Over Repeated Filings

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed a writ petition seeking to consolidate FIR and conduct a unified investigation and trial into cheating and misappropriation allegations against Adarsh Credit Co-operative Society Limited (ACCSL).

The bench of Justice Himanshu Joshi imposed a cost of ₹5,000 on the petition observing that he had unnecessarily invoked the extraordinary writ jurisdiction despite having earlier withdrawn writ petition seeking identifcal reliefs without any liberty to file a fresh petition on same cause of action.

The petitioner had filed a writ petition seeking a direction to club, merge and consolidate various FIRs registered in different cities of Madhya Pradesh against the ACCSL and to mandate a single investigation and unified trial.

The counsel for the petitioners argued that the ACCSL was established initially as a co-operative society under Rajasthan Cooperative Socities Act but later converted into Multi-State Cooperative Society under the Multi-State Cooperative Society Act, 2002, thus exapnding its finanacial operations across the country.

Accoridng to the petitioner, the Society had established about 800 branches in 23 States and Union Territories. Large sum of depositors allegedly ivested wuth the Society but their deposits were ot returned resulting in filing of several FIR regsrered in various cities of Madhya Pradesh for Cheating, Misappropriation, criminal breach of trust, conspiracy and other allied offences.

The petitioner also informed the court that he had filed a writ petition earlier but the same was withdrawn as the same became infructuous as the relief claimed was not correct on account of change in circumstances.

The counsel for the respondent conteded that no liberty was granted to the petitioner to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action and the liberty was only confirmed to assialing any subsequent order in the approproiate proceedings.

The court noted that the writ petition no 16685 of 2025, previously filed by the petitioner, was seeking the very same reliefs regarding clubbing of FIRs and a unified investigation and trial. The court noted thar via order dated October 28, 2025 the court had permitted the petition to withdraw the petition with liberty only to assail the subsequent orders in appropriate proceedings.

However, the petition again sought identifcal reliefs without pointing out any subsequent order or any order that may give rise to fresh cause of action. This present writ petition neither challenges any such order nor discloises any new or distinct cause and therefore is in substance a 'repeat petition for the same relief'.

The court further reiterated that a litigant cannot file successive writ petition for the same relief by merely withdrawing an earlier petition unless liberty to institute a fresh petition on same cause of action is expressly granted. The court noted that the earlier writ petition was withdrawn without liberty to re-agitate the same cause and therefore the present petition was barred and amounts to abuse of writ jurisdiction.

The bench further observed;

"The principle of finality of litigation dictates that parties should not be permitted to repeatedly invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court for the same relief, especially when a previous attempt was withdrawn without general liberty to re-file. Such a practice would lead to endless litigation, burden the judicial system, and undermine the sanctity of judicial orders. The petitioner's action, in essence, attempts to circumvent the implications of withdrawing the earlier petition, which would set a dangerous precedent for future litigants".

Relying on the case of Sarguja Transport Service v STAT [(1987) 1 SCC 5], the court noted that entertaning the present petition would be an abuse of the porocess of law and violated the well established principles governing the maintainability of sucessive writ petitions.

Thus, the bench directed;

"the present petition amounts to a clear abuse of the process of Court and has resulted in unwarranted wastage of the Court's precious time, which could have been utilized for adjudication of matters of genuine urgency. Such conduct is required to be strongly discouraged. Accordingly, this Court deems it appropriate to impose costs of costs of ₹5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) upon the petitioner so as to deter the filing of frivolous and repetitive petitions".

The petition was therefore, dismissed.

Case Title: Rahul Modi v State of Madhya Pradesh [WP-43781-2025]

For Petitioners: Senior Advocate Manish Datt with Advocate Pankaj Dubey

For State: Government Advocate Priyanka Mishra

Click here to read/download the Order