Multiple FIRs In Different States On Ponzi Scheme: 'Can It Be Dealt By A Separate Wing of Central Investigating Agency?' SC Asks Centre To Find A Solution

While hearing a writ petition seeking transfer and clubbing of 29 FIR's registered against an accused who has been in custody for falsely collecting crores of money in cash from people to any appropriate Investigating Agency or in the State of Haryana, the Supreme Court on Monday (October 1, 2021) asked the Centre to come up with the solution to deal with the matters in which multiple FIR's are registered against a particular person in a ponzi scam in multiple states. "Please come up with a solution & we'll have to see what needs to be done. This is something to be worried about. So many FIR's will be a travesty of justice," Justice LN Rao said to Solicitor General. The bench of Justices LN Rao and BR Gavai were hearing a petition filed by Radhey Shyam, Chief Managing Director of Future Maker Life Care Private Limited who has been in jail since October 10, 2018, on account of various FIR's registered against him within different states at various time intervals. Shyam in his writ petition had sought the issuance of directions for not registering further FIR's against him by any Investigating Agency and on the same cause of action. When the petition which also sought for issuance of directions to not take cognizance by any Court/Authority empowered to do so on any complaint premised on the same cause of action was called for hearing, Justice LN Rao the presiding judge of the bench asked Solicitor General if some body could be constituted to investigate in the matter where multiple FIR's are registered against a person in multiple states. Appearing for the Centre, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta at the outset suggested transferring the matters to CBI and dispensing the informants. "FIR informants may have to be heard. There is one option wherein we can transfer the matter to CBI. Let the court exercise its jurisdiction under Art 142. Everything can go to CBI," Solicitor General submitted. Remarking that CBI is already overburdened and if all the cases of this nature were transferred to CBI, there would be a need for the Central Investigating Agency to have a different wing, the bench remarked that the issue in the present matter was not only related to the right of the accused(s) but also to take care of the interest of the depositors. Appearing for Radhey Shyam Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal drew the Court's attention to the Top Court's judgment in Narinderjit Singh Sahni and Another v Union of India, 2002 in which the Court had asked the Central Government to evolve a certain formula or procedure in cases where officials of the company accept deposits from a large number of people in different schemes and fail to make the repayment in spite of requests for their expeditious disposal. Senior Counsel further submitted that currently 29 FIR's had been registered against Radhey Shyam and there was only one case in which charges were framed and the others were in the course of the investigation. He also contended that there was no need to investigate every case since the nature of the transaction in every case was same. "If you take one sample case & he's convicted there, then you don't have to investigate all the cases," Senior Counsel submitted. Seeking for grant of bail and assuring cooperation in the investigation, Senior Counsel further suggested for transferring the cases to CBI or SIT. "Dates will be fixed in various states, without appearing in other cases. So I'll have to appear. How do I defend myself & engage lawyers? The other problem is that in MP, the judge denied me bail on the ground that I'm not cooperating with the investigation. How will I help in the investigation since I am in Jail? Something needs to be done," the Senior Advocate added. "There are so many investors. We are thinking of suggestions given by Solicitor General. But that would not serve a purpose. Since the CBI will have to take the investigation in so many cases. It'll be difficult for the informants. Please find a different suggestion. We'll have a detailed hearing," the bench remarked while adjourning the matter for October 28, 2021. "I'll see if any guidelines have been framed in the Narinderjit Singh Sahni case & see if any guidelines have not been placed, I'll ask to frame the guidelines & present it before the court," Solicitor General submitted. The Top Court also issued notice to the State of Uttar Pradesh and asked the Petitioner's counsel to serve the copy of the petition to the states where FIR's had been registered against Radhey Shyam. The petition was filed through Advocate on Record C George Thomas. Case Title: Radhey Shyam v State of Haryana and Ors| WP (Crl) 75/2020Click Here To Read/ Download Order

Multiple FIRs In Different States On Ponzi Scheme: 'Can It Be Dealt By A Separate Wing of Central Investigating Agency?' SC Asks Centre To Find A Solution

Shruti Kakkar

Tags