Anil Kumar Sinha vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:37634
1 MCRC-13398-2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIMANSHU JOSHI
th
ON THE 27 OF APRIL, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 13398 of 2021
ANIL KUMAR SINHA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Naman Nagrath - Senior Advocate with Anvesh Shrivastava -
Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Alok Agnihotri - GA for the respondent-State.
ORDER
This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 has been preferred by the applicant invoking the inherent jurisdiction of
this Court for quashment of multiple criminal proceedings pending before the
Courts at Shahdol, as detailed in Annexure A/1. The principal contention of
the applicant is that all such prosecutions arise out of a singular business
transaction and, therefore, continuation of separate trials amounts to abuse of
the process of law and unnecessary multiplicity of proceedings.
2. The facts, as projected by the applicant, reveal that he was
Managing Director of a company namely Mahakaushal Plantations Limited,
which had floated various deposit schemes inviting investments from the
general public with an assurance of repayment along with enhanced returns
upon maturity. It is submitted that due to certain financial constraints and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANOJ NAIR
Signing time: 13-05-2026
10:46:26

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:37634
2 MCRC-13398-2021
administrative complications, the company failed to honour the repayment

commitments to its depositors, which resulted in registration of numerous
criminal cases by individual investors across different districts and States.
According to the applicant, as many as 93 criminal cases were registered
against him and other co-accused persons arising out of such transactions,
the details whereof are placed on record as Annexure A/6. The applicant was
arrested in the year 1998 and remained in judicial custody till the year 2010.
The custody certificate filed as Annexure A/7 indicates that the applicant has
undergone incarceration for approximately 11 years and 7 months.
3. The record further discloses that the applicant approached the
Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 95/2004
seeking, inter alia, protection of his fundamental rights and relief against
prolonged incarceration. The Hon’ble Apex Court, vide order dated
08.10.2007 (Annexure A/2), granted bail to the applicant and further issued
directions to streamline the conduct of trials. It is also borne out from the
material on record that vide order dated 13.05.2005 (Annexure A/3), the
Hon’ble Supreme Court issued directions regarding transfer and sequencing
of cases to different districts such as Katni, Indore, Shahdol, Bhopal, Sagar,
Gwalior, Narsinghpur and Balaghat, so as to ensure that the applicant is not
subjected to simultaneous trials at multiple places and to safeguard his right
to a fair and speedy trial. Subsequently, the proceedings were transferred to
this Court vide order dated 24.08.2015 (Annexure A/4), and the matter came
to be registered as W.P. No. 17804/2015. This Court, vide order dated
12.06.2018 (Annexure A/5), considered the aspect of liabilities of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANOJ NAIR
Signing time: 13-05-2026
10:46:26

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:37634
3 MCRC-13398-2021
company and observed that the liabilities stood discharged, whereafter the

attached properties were directed to be released.
4. It is not in dispute that out of the total number of cases registered
against the applicant, a substantial number of trials have already concluded
over the years. The applicant has placed on record details of cases resulting
in acquittal (Annexure A/10) as well as those resulting in conviction
(Annexure A/9). In cases where the applicant has been convicted, it is
submitted that the Trial Courts have taken into consideration the period
already undergone by him during incarceration and, in several instances,
have directed that sentences run concurrently. The present petition is
confined to the quashment of pending cases at Shahdol, including Complaint
Case Nos. 4495/2018, 4501/2018, 4507/2018, 4508/2018, 4509/2018,
4503/2018, 4502/2018, 4510/2018, 4499/2018, 4498/2018, 4496/2018,
4497/2018, 4505/2018, 4506/2018 and 4504/2018 as detailed in paragraph
10 of the petition and Annexure A/1.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has advanced elaborate
submissions contending that all the criminal cases registered against the
applicant emanate from a common business activity undertaken through the
same company and, therefore, constitute a single transaction within the
meaning of Sections 218 to 220 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is
urged that in such circumstances, subjecting the applicant to separate trials in
each case is legally unwarranted and contrary to the scheme of criminal
procedure which seeks to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. It is further
submitted that the applicant has already undergone prolonged incarceration
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANOJ NAIR
Signing time: 13-05-2026
10:46:26

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:37634
4 MCRC-13398-2021
of more than eleven years, which, according to the counsel, exceeds the

maximum punishment prescribed for most of the offences alleged against
him, particularly those punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian
Penal Code. On this basis, it is argued that any further continuation of
criminal proceedings would serve no meaningful purpose.
6. Learned counsel has also placed reliance on the provisions of
Section 427 Cr.P.C., as well as settled judicial precedents filed as Annexure
A/8, to contend that in cases arising out of the same transaction, sentences
are liable to run concurrently. It is thus argued that even in the event of
conviction in the pending cases, the sentences would effectively stand
absorbed within the period of incarceration already undergone, thereby
rendering continuation of trials redundant. It is additionally contended that
the proceedings in question have been pending for more than two decades,
and such inordinate delay amounts to a violation of the applicant’s
fundamental right to speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. The prolonged pendency, it is submitted, has subjected
the applicant to continuous mental agony and uncertainty.
7. Lastly, it is argued that permitting the continuation of multiple
criminal proceedings on the same set of allegations would result in
unnecessary harassment to the applicant and would also lead to wastage of
valuable judicial time, as the Courts would be required to repeatedly
adjudicate upon substantially identical issues arising from the same factual
background.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANOJ NAIR
Signing time: 13-05-2026
10:46:26

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:37634
5 MCRC-13398-2021
the petition and submitted that each of the complaints lodged against the

applicant pertains to a distinct depositor and arises out of separate and
independent transactions. It is contended that in every case there is a specific
allegation of inducement, separate entrustment of money, and an
independent act of breach of trust or cheating, thereby constituting distinct
offences in the eyes of law. It is further argued that the principle of “same
transaction” cannot be mechanically applied merely on the ground that the
alleged acts were committed under a common scheme or business activity.
According to the State, the test of sameness of transaction requires a direct
and proximate connection between the acts, which is absent in the present
case where each complainant has an independent cause of action. It is also
contended by the counsel that the applicant has already undergone trial in
several cases, and the fact that some of the proceedings have concluded
cannot be a ground to terminate the remaining prosecutions. It is urged that
the pending cases must be allowed to proceed in accordance with law so that
the allegations made by individual complainants are duly adjudicated.
9. Lastly, it is contended that the inherent powers of this Court under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. are extraordinary and are required to be exercised
sparingly and with great caution. Such powers, it is argued, cannot be
invoked to stifle legitimate prosecutions, particularly in cases involving
serious allegations of financial irregularities affecting a large number of
victims.
10. Upon consideration of the rival submissions advanced by learned
counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material available on record, the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANOJ NAIR
Signing time: 13-05-2026
10:46:26

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:37634
6 MCRC-13398-2021
issues which arise for determination before this Court are whether the

pending criminal cases against the applicant can be said to arise out of the
same transaction so as to warrant their quashment whether the continuation
of such proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court
and whether, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court
ought to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure.
11. This Court has given thoughtful consideration to the entire
factual matrix and the legal position governing the field. The principal plank
of the applicant’s argument is that all the offences arise out of the “same
transaction”. However, a careful examination of the record reveals that each
case is based on an independent complaint lodged by a different depositor,
involving separate amounts, separate dates of investment, and distinct
representations alleged to have been made to each complainant.
12. The concept of “same transaction” as contemplated under
Sections 218 to 220 Cr.P.C. cannot be stretched to include all acts carried out
under a general business scheme over an extended period of time involving
numerous individuals. The essential ingredients of proximity of time, unity
of place, continuity of action, and commonality of purpose in a narrow and
immediate sense are not satisfied in the present case. Merely because the
transactions were undertaken under the umbrella of a single company or
scheme does not obliterate the individuality of each offence. Each depositor
has suffered an independent alleged wrong, giving rise to a separate cause of
action.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANOJ NAIR
Signing time: 13-05-2026
10:46:26

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:37634
7 MCRC-13398-2021
13. The contention regarding prolonged incarceration, though

significant, does not by itself furnish a ground for quashing pending
prosecutions. The period of custody already undergone by the applicant has
been duly considered by the Trial Courts in concluded cases, and appropriate
benefit has been extended while determining sentence. The argument relating
to concurrent sentencing under Section 427 Cr.P.C. is also misconceived at
this stage, as the question of sentence would arise only upon conviction in
each individual case. Such considerations cannot form the basis for pre-
emptively terminating criminal trials.
14. So far as the plea of violation of the right to speedy trial is
concerned, this Court is mindful of the fact that the proceedings have been
pending for a considerable length of time. However, the delay cannot be
viewed in isolation, as it is attributable to the multiplicity of cases, their
geographical spread, and the nature of allegations involving numerous
complainants. It is also of significance that the Hon’ble Supreme Court,
while dealing with the applicant’s case (Annexures A/2 and A/3), did not
deem it appropriate to quash the prosecutions but instead issued directions
for proper conduct and sequencing of trials. This clearly indicates that the
prosecutions were found to be legally maintainable.
15. The inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are intended to
be exercised sparingly and with circumspection, only to prevent miscarriage
of justice or abuse of process. The present case does not fall within the
category where such extraordinary jurisdiction ought to be invoked. On the
contrary, the allegations against the applicant involve financial transactions
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANOJ NAIR
Signing time: 13-05-2026
10:46:26

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:37634
8 MCRC-13398-2021
affecting a large number of investors, and each complainant is entitled to

have his grievance adjudicated in accordance with law.
16. In view of the detailed discussion hereinabove, this Court is of
the considered opinion that the pending criminal proceedings cannot be said
to arise out of a single transaction in the legal sense. The applicant has failed
to demonstrate that continuation of proceedings amounts to abuse of process
of law. No case is made out for exercise of inherent powers under Section
482 Cr.P.C. Consequently, the petition filed by the applicant under Section
482 Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed.
17. It is, however, observed that the applicant shall be at liberty to
raise all permissible contentions before the Trial Courts, including pleas
relating to delay, set-off under Section 428 Cr.P.C., and concurrency of
sentence under Section 427 Cr.P.C., at the appropriate stage. The Trial
Courts concerned are directed to make sincere endeavors to expedite the
proceedings, keeping in view the long pendency and the age of the applicant.
(HIMANSHU JOSHI)
JUDGE
mn

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANOJ NAIR
Signing time: 13-05-2026
10:46:26