[2026:RJ-JP:12709] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 1604/2025 1. Govind Mahima Realmart Private Limited, Aged About 82 Years, A Company Incorporated Under The Provisions Of The Companies Act 1956 (Now Governed By The Companies Act, 2013) Having Its Corporate Identification No. (Cin U45201Rj2010Ptc032346) Presently Locates Its Registered Office At, 707 Paris Point, Near Collectorate Circle Banipark, Jaipur 302016 (Rajasthan), Through Its Director Mrs. Sushila Gupta Wife Of Late Mr. Radhe Shyam Gupta, Aged About (82) Years Presently Residing At 364, Sector - 3, Gems Colony, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur 302039 (Rajasthan). 2. Satyanarayan Gupta S/o Late Mr. Radhe Shyam Gupta, Aged About 58 Years, Presently Residing At 364, Sector- 3, Gems Colony, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur 302039 (Rajasthan), Presently Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur (Rajasthan). ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Home Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur 302005, Rajasthan. 2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarter, Jaipur 303002, Rajasthan. 3. State Of Rajasthan, Through Commissionerate Of Police, Mirza Ismail Road, Ashok Nagar, Jaipur 302001, Rajasthan. 4. Station House Officer (Sho), Police Station Kalwar, Jaipur City (West) Rajasthan. 5. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Pp 6. Shri Govind Kripa Buildmart Private Limited, A Company Incorporated Under The Provisions Of The Companies Act, 1956 (Now Governed By The Companies Act, 2013) Having Its Corporate Identification No. (Cin U45201Rj2007Ptc024320) Locates Its Registered Office At, A-2, Rana Pratap Nagar, Kalwar Road, Jothwara, Jaipur 302012, (Rajasthan) Through Its Director, Mr. Shankar Khandelwal S/o Mohan Lal Khandelwal, Residing [2026:RJ-JP:12709] (2 of 6) [CRLW-1604/2025] At A2, Rana Pratap Nagar, Kalwar Road, Jaipur 302012 (Rajasthan). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sawdeep Singh Hora Mr. Rajesh Mehrishi Mr. Naresh Kumar Sejvani Mr. Kunal Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. V.R. Bajwa, Sr. Adv., assisted by Mr. Amar Kumar Mr. Dinesh Kumar Garg Mr. Rajesh Choudhary-GA-cum-AAG with Mr. Jitendra Singh Rathore, Addl.G.A. Ms. Neha Goyal Mr. Alok Kumar, ACP, Jhotwara Mr. Suresh Singh, C.I. P.S. Kalwar HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH Order 25/03/2026 1. This criminal writ petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioners seeking direction of this Court for clubbing multiple FIRs registered against them at the instance of Respondent No. 6. 2. Brief facts of the case are that an agreement was entered into between the petitioner’s company, representing M/s Govind Mahima Real Mart Private Limited, and the complainant’s company, M/s Govindkripa Buildmart Private Limited, for the development of a scheme known as “Parth City Scheme.” The land for the project belonged to the complainant’s company (second party), while the petitioner’s company (first party) was responsible for developing the scheme. A Development Agreement was executed between the parties on 16.07.2011. Thereafter, the parties executed another Agreement Deed on 16.04.2012, [2026:RJ-JP:12709] (3 of 6) [CRLW-1604/2025] reaffirming or modifying the terms of their arrangement. Subsequently, a compromise deed between them was entered into on 27.06.2017. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the complainant–Respondent No. 6 has lodged as many as five FIRs against the petitioners in respect of the same transactions; moreover, the development agreement as well as the property in question are identical in all the cases. He further submits that in one of the matters, the police have already filed a charge-sheet and all the matters are interconnected. Therefore, it is prayed that all the FIRs be clubbed together/tagged and that the investigation in all the FIRs be conducted at one police station by a single investigating officer. 4. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon various judgments, which are as under:- I. Shankar Savukku Vs. State of T.N. Writ Petition No.340/2024 II. Satinder Singh Bhasin Vs. State of UP 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2155 III. In Re: Expeditious Trial of Cases 2021 (16) SCC 16 IV. Parminder Singh V. UOI MANU/RH/0817/2015 V Ketan Kantilal Seth Vs. State of Gujarat 2022 SC OnLine SC 1192 VI. Union Bank of India V. Rajat Infra 2023(10) SCC 232 VII. High Court Bar Association V. State of UP 2024 SCC OnLine SC 207 VIII. Radhe Shyam V. State of Haryana [2026:RJ-JP:12709] (4 of 6) [CRLW-1604/2025] 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1935 IX. Abhishek Singh Chauhan V. UOI 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1936 X. Amish Devgan V. UOI 2021(1) SCC 1 XI. Mohammad Zubair V. State of NCT Delhi 2022 SCC OnLine SC 897 XII. Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah V. CBI 2013(6) SCC 348 XIII. Satinder Singh Bhasin V. State of UP WP Cr.M. 197/2021 XIV. Yogendra Saw V. State of Jharkhand MANU/SC/0765/2019 XV. Amanat Ali V. State of Karnataka 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1648 5. Learned Government Advocate-cum-Additional Advocate General, assisted by learned Senior Counsel for Respondent No. 6, opposed the petition and submits that the issues involved in each of the FIRs are distinct. They further submit that in some cases, the allegations pertain to the issuance of forged pattas in respect of a particular parcel of land, while in other cases, the allegations relate to the issuance of forged pattas issued with the assistance of co-accused persons, where certain pattas were allegedly handed over as security. They further submit that each case requires independent investigation under different provisions of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. They further submit that no prejudice would be caused to the petitioners if the investigations are conducted separately in each case, as the petitioners are habitual offenders against whom criminal cases have been registered at various police stations within the Jaipur City, and they are accustomed to facing such investigations. They further submit that [2026:RJ-JP:12709] (5 of 6) [CRLW-1604/2025] the FIRs have been lodged over a considerable period of time and investigations are still going-on; therefore, the prayer for clubbing at this stage is premature. Lastly, it is prayed that the present criminal writ petition be dismissed. 6. In support of their contentions, learned Government Advocate-cum-Additional Advocate General assisted by learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No.6 relied upon various judgments, which are as under:- I. The State (NCT) of Delhi V. Khimji Bhai Jadeja reported in 2026 INSC 25. II. State of Punjab & Anr. V. Rajesh Syal reported in AIR 2002 Supreme Court 3687. III. Rameshchandra Nandlal Parikh Vs. State of Gujarat and Anr. reported in JT 2006 (1) SC 326. IV. Chirag M. Pathak & Ors. Vs. Etc.etc. Vs. Dollyben Kantilal & Ors. reported in JT 2017 (11) SC 153 V. Nirmal Singh Kahlon Vs. State of Punjab and Ors. reported in JT 2008 (12) SC 331. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. This criminal writ petition filed on behalf of the petitioners deserves to be dismissed; for the reasons, firstly, as informed by the learned Government Advocate-cum-Additional Advocate General, the petitioner No.2 is history-sheeter against whom numerous criminal cases have been registered at various police stations within the Jaipur City, and he is repeatedly facing investigation and incarceration, secondly, a bare reading of the FIRs reveals the commission of cognizable offences against the [2026:RJ-JP:12709] (6 of 6) [CRLW-1604/2025] petitioners; in each FIR, different pattas have allegedly been issued to different persons, and specific allegations have been levelled against them by the complainant, thirdly, the investigations in all the matters are still going-on, as submitted by the learned Government Advocate-cum-Additional Advocate General, lastly, in my considered view, the prayer for clubbing of FIRs for the purpose of investigation at this stage is premature. 9. In that view of the matter, the criminal writ petition stands dismissed. (INDERJEET SINGH),J Upendra Pratap Singh /3