'Legally Irreconcilable': Rajasthan HC Rejects Pleas By Ex-MLA Pramod Jain Bhaya, Others Seeking Both Quashing And Clubbing Of FIRs

Justice Sameer Jain ruled that the FIRs registered, were concerning distinct and independent allegations, involving different witnesses, different documents, and separate causes of action. The court said:

"These FIRs are not interconnected by a common thread of fact, transaction, or occurrence.  Hence, the doctrine of sameness...is not applicable. The legal threshold of nexus inter se or res gestae, a continuing transaction forming one chain of events is not satisfied. Further, it is noteworthy that only those FIRs can be clubbed together which arise out of same transaction and when the 'test of sameness' is proved, however, in the matter in hand the allegations leveled in the FIRs per se makes it unambiguous that they do not arise out of the same transaction. Therefore, the prayer for clubbing of FIRs is without legal foundation and is accordingly rejected". 

The court observed that the cause of action being distinct and the offences being registered at different police stations involving separate incidents, clubbing or conducting joint probe cannot be permitted. 

"As regards the petitioner's prayer for transfer of investigation and for entrusting the same to a single high-ranking IPS officer to ensure fairness, it is pertinent to note that the petitions do not allege any specific malafides or bias against any named Investigating Officer. No concrete incident, act, or omission is brought on record, nor have the concerned officers been impleaded as parties to the proceedings. The law requires that for an allegation of malafide to be sustained, it must be pleaded with specificity and supported by material facts. In the absence of mens rea, or a demonstrable element of ill-intention, such a prayer cannot be entertained. Furthermore, it is also noted that several Investigating Officers have since been transferred or reassigned. No representation appears to be made to the higher police authorities, and no formal complaint against the investigation process is on record," it added. 

The court further rejected the prayer for quashing of FIRs "primarily on the ground of contradictory and mutually exclusive reliefs" prayed for by the petitioner–i.e., seeking both a "unified fair investigation and simultaneous quashing", which the court said are legally irreconcilable.

It further said that the prayer for transfer of investigation to a single IPS ranked officer cannot also be granted as the petitioner cannot claim such a privilege in the absence of any demonstrable malafide, particularly when the FIRs relate to different transactions filed at different locations involving separate investigating agencies.

It was the case of the petitioners that pursuant to Bhaya's 2023 defeat, the ruling party that emerged victorious in 2024, started misusing the state machinery to harass prominent opposition leaders.

As a result, as series of FIRs were lodged, alleging petitioner's involvement in grave offences like criminal forgery, financial misappropriation, fabrication of public records, illegal mining activities etc. in connivance with his close relatives, friends, and supporters.

Petitions were filed before the Court challenging the FIRs seeking clubbing of the same and seeking a direction for unified investigation by an IPS officer posted in any district of Rajasthan other than Baran and Jhalawar. This was sought on the apprehension that the investigation shall not be fair, since the investigating agencies shall be under the influence of the ruling party

In the alternative the petitioners sought quashing of the FIR on the ground that the same were based on vague, absurd and improbable allegations.

After hearing the contentions, Court referred to the Supreme Court case of Romila Thapar & Ors. v Union of India, opining that, the Apex Court had ruled that the accused had no locus standi to dictate or choose the investigating officer, unless the process was vitiated by apparent bias or illegality. The right to fair investigation was sacrosanct but it did not imply the right to manipulate the course of investigation.

It was held that given the grave nature of allegations, the FIRs demanded thorough and unhampered investigation.

Accordingly, the prayers of quashing of FIRs as well as a unified investigation were rejected for being contradictory, mutually exclusive and legally irreconcilable.

Title: Hussain Mohammad v Shri Tolaram & Anr., and other connected petitions

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 167