Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | W.P.(Crl.) No.-000397-000397 – 2025 |
| Diary Number | 26673/2025 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE |
| Bench | HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE; HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. VINOD CHANDRAN |
| Precedent Value | Binding on all subordinate courts; authoritative on inter-state clubbing of FIRs |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing precedents on FIR consolidation; limits scope of Article 142 transfers |
| Type of Law | Criminal procedure; inherent writ jurisdiction under Article 32/142; inter-state transfer of FIRs |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that clubbing of FIRs across different States is impermissible under inherent powers or Article 142 without the consent of concerned States and special circumstances. Transfers may be ordered only within a State where multiple FIRs are registered (e.g., Telangana and Maharashtra in this case). Pre-emptive orders for future FIRs are beyond judicial power. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Multiple FIRs were filed in Telangana, Karnataka, Maharashtra, West Bengal, Delhi, Andhra Pradesh and Rajasthan against a firm and its officers for defalcation of investor funds under various State‐level depositor protection statutes and the IT Act. Petitioners sought clubbing of all existing and future FIRs into one Police Station where the first FIR was lodged. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts |
| Persuasive For | High Courts considering requests for FIR consolidation across State boundaries |
| Distinguishes | Cross‐State consolidation (rejected) vs. intra‐State transfers (permitted for Telangana and Maharashtra FIRs) |
| Follows | Amandeep Singh Saran; Amish Devgan; T.T. Antony; Upkar Singh; Amanat Ali |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Courts cannot pre‐emptively club future FIRs on the same allegations; such prayers are “outright illegal.”
- Article 142 transfers of FIRs across State boundaries require the consent of the concerned State Government.
- Within-State consolidation is permitted: in Telangana, four FIRs moved to EOW Cyberabad; in Maharashtra, one FIR moved to Ambazari Nagpur City.
- Section 242 of Bharathiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023 allows joinder of “same kind” offences within 12 months (up to five), but does not override jurisdictional limits.
- Courts must award travel and residence costs for witnesses when FIRs are transferred to a different station.
- Bail protection granted for six months with cooperation conditions; warrants stayed for that period.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Petitioners’ prayer for clubbing existing and future FIRs across multiple States is impermissible under Amandeep Singh Saran.
- Radhey Shyam and Amanat Ali underscore that Article 142 may be used for consolidation only with State consent, and limited to that State’s FIRs.
- T.T. Antony’s rule against multiple FIRs applies only to identical incidents within the same jurisdiction; Upkar Singh clarifies it does not bar a counter‐complaint.
- The Court followed Amish Devgan’s treatment of subsequent FIRs as statements under Section 162 CrPC, ensuring complainants’ rights to protest closure reports.
- Section 242 of BNS Sanhitha, 2023 was noted for intra-State joinder of offences of the same kind within a year, but not for cross-State FIRs.
- Practical difficulties—witness production from multiple jurisdictions—counselled against clubbing FIRs nationwide.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioners
- All FIRs arise from the same cause of action (defalcation of investor funds) and must be investigated under one roof.
- Future FIRs on identical allegations should be clubbed to avoid multiplicity of litigation.
State of Telangana
- Although modus operandi is similar, essential facts and applicable State‐level statutes differ across jurisdictions.
- FIR consolidation across State lines is impermissible; future FIRs cannot be pre-cluded.
Factual Background
Petitioners include firm partners and family members who were named in multiple FIRs alleging diversion of investor deposits. Economic Offences Wings and various State Police Stations registered FIRs under investor‐protection and IT statutes. Petitioners sought clubbing of all FIRs and any future complaints into a single investigation at the first FIR’s station.
Statutory Analysis
- Article 142 of the Constitution permits wide relief but cannot override jurisdictional boundaries without State consent.
- Section 162 CrPC: subsequent FIRs may be treated as statements in inquiry.
- Section 242, Bharathiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023: allows trial consolidation of up to five “same kind” offences within twelve months, but does not permit cross-State transfer of FIRs.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Affirmation of limits on FIR consolidation under Amandeep Singh, Amish Devgan, T.T. Antony.