Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.B. PARDIWALA, JJ.
ABHISHEK SINGH CHAUHAN – PETITIONER
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. – RESPONDENTS
WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 40 of 2022
Decided On : 13-07-2022
Clubbing of FIRs - Criminal Procedure - The Constitution of India, Article 142; Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999; Madhya Pradesh Investor Protection Act, 2000; Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors Interest Act, 2005 - The court directed the clubbing of FIRs state-wise for one trial, emphasizing that multiplicity of proceedings would not be in the larger public interest. The subsequent FIRs in each state were to be treated as statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the investigating officer was free to file supplementary chargesheets after collating all records concerning other FIRs. The direction was limited to general offences, IPC offences, and offences under special state legislations, excluding offences concerning the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India seeking the clubbing of all FIRs registered in different states and for grant of bail.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the clubbing of FIRs state-wise for one trial, allowing subsequent FIRs to be treated as statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It emphasized that multiplicity of proceedings would not be in the larger public interest.
Issues: Clubbing of FIRs, Grant of Bail
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that clubbing of FIRs state-wise for one trial would be in the larger public interest and allowed subsequent FIRs to be treated as statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of with the direction to club FIRs state-wise for one trial and to treat subsequent FIRs as statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
ORDER
In this writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, the principal relief claimed by the petitioner is regarding clubbing of all the FIRs registered in different States and for grant of bail respectively. The details of said FIRs are as follow: -
| SI. NO. | FIR NO. | DATE | OFFENCES | POLICE STATION |
| WEST BENGAL | ||||
| 1. | RC/40/S/2014 | 5.6.2015 | S. 420, 120B & 34 IPC S. 4, 5 & 6 prize chits and money circulation schemes (Banning Act, 1978) | CBI/SCB/SIT Kolkata |
| RAJASTHAN | ||||
| 2. | 338/2018 | 12.09.2018 | S. 420, 406, 120-B IPC | Pindwara, Sirohi |
| MAHARASHTRA | ||||
| 3. | 552/2016 | 15.04.2016 | S. 420, 409 IPC S. 3 & 4 of The Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 | Ramnagar, Chandrapur |
| 4. | 533/2017 | 29.07.2017 | S. 420, 504, 506, 34 IPC | Nahol, Sholapur |
| 5. | 467/2017 | 08.08.2017 | S. 3 & 4 of The Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 | Bijapur Naka, Sholapur |
| MADHYA PRADESH | ||||
| 6. | 915/2016 | 09.11.2016 | S. 420, 409, 120B & 34 IPC S. 6 Madhya Pradesh Investor Protection Act, 2000 | Kotwali, Sehore |
| 7. | 51/2017 | 08.2.2017 | S. 420, 409, 120B & 34 IPC S. 6 Madhya Pradesh Investor Protection Act, 2000 | Byawara Rural, Rajgarh |
| 8. | 03/2017 | 08.03.2017 | S. 420, 409, 120B & 34 IPC S. 6 Madhya Pradesh Investor Protection Act, 2000 | EOW, Bhopal |
| CHATTISGARH | ||||
| 9. | 146/2017 | 04.04.2017 | S. 120B, 420 &34 IPC The Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors Interest Act, 2005 | Surajpur |
| 10. | 127/2017 | 10.04.2017 | S. 420 & 34 IPC The Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors Interest Act, 2005 | Kanker |
| 11. | 240/2017 | 16.04.2017 | S. 420 IPC | Bemetara |
| 12. | 161/2017 | 21.04.2017 | S. 420 IPC | Baloda, Baloda Bazar |
| 13. | 176/2017 | 02.05.2017 | S. 420 IPC | Tila Nebra, Raipur |
| 14. | 591/2019 | 06.08.2019 | S. 420 & 34 IPC | Raigarh Kotwali, Raigarh |
| 15. | 79/2019 | 10.08.2019 | S. 420 IPC | Geedam, Dantewada |
2. It is noticed that the crime registered in the State of West Bengal has been investigated by C.B.I. and chargesheet has also been filed in connection with the said case. We are also informed by the learned Additional Solicitor General that the trial has also commenced in that case. As a result, no direction can be issued for clubbing of other cases with the said case being investigated by the special Investigating Agency i.e., C.B.I.
3. As regards crimes registered against the petitioner in the State of Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh in each of these States, the trial will proceed before the Special Court under the special enactment, namely, Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999, Madhya Pradesh Investor Protection Act, 2000 and Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors Interest Act, 2005 respectively.
4. The cases in the concerned States, to be tried by the Special Court can be conveniently clubbed, for being tried together as has been directed in the case of Radhey Shyam vs. State of Haryana & Ors.in Writ Petition (Crl.) No.75/2020 vide Order dated 12.05.2022.
5. Following the exposition of this Court in Amish Devgan vs. Union of India & Ors.1, we deem it appropriate in exercise of power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, to direct clubbing of all the FIRs State-wise, which can proceed together for one trial as far as possible, as we are of the opinion that multiplicity of the proceedings will not be in the larger public interest. We may hasten to add that the concerned States have no objection for abiding with such dispensation.
6. In other words, the offence registered in the State of West Bengal being RC/40/S/2014 dated 05.06.2015 registered with CBI/SCB/SIT, Kolkata, will proceed before the concerned Court in the State
The court emphasized that multiplicity of proceedings would not be in the larger public interest and directed the clubbing of FIRs state-wise for one trial, allowing subsequent FIRs to be treated as ....
The court emphasized the specific nature of the offenses under different State enactments and recent judgments in declining to grant the relief sought by the petitioner under Article 32 of the Consti....
The court ruled against the clubbing of FIRs from multiple States citing unique factual circumstances in each case, which undermines practical consolidation.
Clubbing of FIRs – Multiplicity of proceedings will not be in larger public interest – Other offences not part of special enactments can also be tried by Special Court under concerned State legislati....
The court emphasized the necessity of clubbing FIRs to ensure a fair trial and reduce judicial burden, affirming its discretion under the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act and Bharatiya Nagarik Su....
Multiple FIRs alleging identical offences cannot be consolidated if they arise from distinct transactions involving different complainants and evidence.
Each individual deposit agreement should be treated as a separate and individual transaction, and a blanket order granting bail in all cases registered and to be registered in the future is not conte....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
