- (1.) AMAR Saran and Vijay Kumar Verma, JJ. We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned AGA, and Counsel for the complainant.
(2.) THE petition by B. D. Sharma is being treated as the leading petition because learned Counsel for the petitioner has principally raised arguments in this petition. We are disposing of all the connected petitions and Criminal Misc. Application filed under section 482 Cr. P. C. , which was connected by an order passed by a Division Bench dated 11. 10. 2007 by a common order in this writ petition. Essentially the allegations in the F. LR. lodged at case crime No. 221 of 2004 under sections 420, 467, 468, 406 IPC P. S. Kotwali, district Ghaziabad dated 1. 5. 2004 at 6. 30 a. m. by the informant Mahesh Singh Yadav, who was the Secretary to the General Manager of the U. P. Co-operative Bank, Ghaziabad, were that the 18 named accused persons entered into a conspiracy with the then Secretary R. D. Sharma and they formed fake companies and opened accounts. As collateral, they also mortgaged some of the lands with the Bank for obtaining the loans. However, even the mortgaged lands were disposed of and loans were not paid. This fraud has been committed by preparing forged and fabricated documents by the relatives of R. D. Sharma with his aid. The said fraud was being committed for six to 7 years. It may be noted that now charge-sheets have been submitted in all the criminal cases against the petitioners in the present and the connected writ petitions and as such in our view the petitions have even become infructuous.
(3.) HOWEVER, as vehement arguments were raised on merits, we are also alluding to the same. It was argued that for the same crime for which' initially only case crime No. 221 of 2004 was assigned, subsequently separate crime No. 221 A to 221 M have been assigned and therefore separate charge-sheets in the said crimes, which related to a single cause of action are illegal. In one of the petitions, viz. the petition by R. D. Sharma, the Investigating Officer has submitted a counter affidavit. It has been mentioned in paragraph No. 4 of the counter affidavit that as it was revealed that several offences had taken place at different times with different accused persons involved therein, accordingly, for the sake of convenience of investigation, so that the precise role of the accused in each and every crime could be ascertained hence separate crime numbers had been allotted and permission from the higher officials had even been taken by the previous Investigating Officer in this regard. Learned Counsel for the petitioner strongly objected that crime numbers could not be changed as per convenience of the I. O. But the I. O. had clearly pointed out that as the embezzlement had taken place for a long period of time involving different accused and clear evidence could be collected regarding commission of the crimes by the different accused, separate crime numbers were assigned.;