Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | Crl.A. No.-000074-000074 – 2026 |
| Diary Number | 34815/2019 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR |
| Bench |
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. VINOD CHANDRAN |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority clarifying consolidation of offences under CrPC |
| Overrules / Affirms |
Overrules answers of the Delhi High Court in Criminal Reference No. 1 of 2014 Affirms existing precedents on “same transaction” consolidation |
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi | The stage for determining whether offences form a “same transaction” is framing of charges, not registration of FIRs. Offences may be consolidated under Sections 220(1) and 223(a),(d) CrPC if they exhibit unity of purpose and design, proximity of time/place or continuity of action (any strong circumstance suffice). Separate FIRs and trials are required only where offences form distinct transactions, subject to Section 219 CrPC/Section 242 BNSS. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | FIR 89/2009 (06.01.2009) by Delhi Economic Offences Wing under Sections 420 & 120B IPC on complaint of Rajesh Kumar alleged promise to triple money via “divine power”; 1,852 investors cheated of ₹46.40 crores. One FIR registered; 1,851 subsequent complaints treated as statements. Main charge sheet filed on 09.02.2014; six supplementary charge sheets filed up to 2025. Bail petition in 2014 led Additional Sessions Judge to refer three legal questions under Section 395(2) CrPC. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and trial courts |
| Overrules | Delhi High Court’s judgment in Criminal Reference No. 1 of 2014 requiring separate FIRs |
| Distinguishes | Narinderjit Singh Sahni & Anr. v. Union of India (2002) 2 SCC 210 (no in-depth consolidation analysis) |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The Supreme Court held that the question whether offences constitute the “same transaction” can only be answered at the stage of framing of charges under Sections 220(1) and 223(a),(d) CrPC, not at FIR‐registration.
- References under Section 395(2) CrPC on FIR consolidation are premature until investigation concludes.
- Reaffirms that any one of the tests—unity of purpose/design, proximity of time/place or continuity of action—can suffice to treat multiple acts as one transaction.
- Police may register a single FIR in cases of criminal conspiracy and record other complaints as statements under Section 161 CrPC; complainants retain the right to file protest petitions against closure reports.
- Trial courts must apply Sections 218–223 CrPC and, upon conviction, adhere to Section 31 CrPC and Section 71 IPC for sentencing multiple offences.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The High Court erred in holding that each deposit in a conspiracy required a separate FIR at the investigation stage.
- Precedents establish that offences part of the “same transaction” may be consolidated under Sections 220(1) and 223(a),(d) CrPC, evaluated at framing of charges.
- The “same transaction” is not rigidly defined; application depends on facts and any strong circumstance of unity of purpose/design, proximity or continuity.
- If offences are distinct, separate FIRs and trials are mandated, subject to Section 219 CrPC (now Section 242 BNSS) permitting up to three/five offences of the same kind in one trial.
- The Additional Sessions Judge’s reference under Section 395(2) was premature; investigation findings determine consolidation.
- Sentencing for consolidated convictions follows Section 31 CrPC and Section 71 IPC, with concurrent or consecutive sentences as the Court directs.
Arguments by the Parties
Appellant-State (NCT of Delhi):
- A single criminal conspiracy duping multiple investors is one transaction irrespective of victim count.
- Clubbing FIRs is permissible; individual FIRs lead to multiplicity of proceedings and public policy concerns.
- Reliance on Cheemalapati Ganeswara Rao to show that connected acts form one transaction.
Amicus Curiae (Mr. R. Basant):
- The Section 395(2) reference was premature; investigation was ongoing.
- Allegations disclose one conspiracy; registering one FIR and treating other complaints as statements was appropriate.
- Consolidation at framing stage is the correct locus for decision under Section 220(1) CrPC and Section 223.
Factual Background
In June 2009, the Delhi Economic Offences Wing registered FIR 89/2009 under Sections 420 and 120B IPC on Rajesh Kumar’s complaint that accused promised to triple investors’ money by purported divine power, cheating 1,852 persons of ₹46.40 crores. Subsequent 1,851 complaints were treated as statements under Section 161 CrPC. A main charge sheet was filed in 2014 and six supplementary charge sheets through 2025. During respondent’s bail proceedings in 2014, three questions on FIR consolidation and sentencing were referred under Section 395(2) CrPC to the High Court.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 218(1) CrPC mandates separate charge and trial for every distinct offence.
- Section 219 CrPC allows up to three offences of the same kind in one trial (now five under Section 242 BNSS).
- Section 220(1) and Section 223(a),(d) CrPC permit consolidation of charges if offences arise from the same transaction.
- Section 161 CrPC enables recording subsequent complaints as statements when investigating a cognizable offence.
- Section 31 CrPC and Section 71 IPC govern sentencing for multiple convictions (concurrent or consecutive).
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Reaffirms the principle of “same transaction” consolidation under CrPC precedents including Cheemalapati Ganeswara Rao and Amish Devgan.