Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, CJI, K.V. VISWANATHAN, J.
Ravinder Singh Sidhu – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Punjab and Others – Respondents
Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 394 of 2024
Decided On : 19-05-2025
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 186 [Section 206 of BNSS, 2023] – Constitution of India – Article 32 read with Article 142 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120B, 34, 263, 114 – Clubbing of FIRs – Multiplicity of proceedings will not be in larger public interest – Since many States have invoked local Acts, particularly the Act dealing with Protection of Interest of Depositors, transferring them out of State also will not serve ends of justice – Correct course of action would be to merge FIRs with earliest FIR in State concerned – If first FIR in respective States of Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Punjab, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand is registered in respect of offence under general law and not special enactment, but if subsequent FIRs now clubbed are registered in connection with special law or registered also in connection with special law, same after clubbing must be tried under special law by Special Court(s) – Investigating Officer in criminal case arising out of principal FIR in concerned State will be free to file supplementary charge-sheets after collation of all records concerning other FIRs in concerned State which are clubbed in terms of this Order – Other offences not part of special enactments can also be tried by Special Court under concerned State legislation – In case petitioner has been granted bail in connection with principal proceeding/criminal case to which other cases have been clubbed, bail so granted must enure to petitioner’s favour in other FIRs now clubbed as well. (Paras 10, 19 and 20)
Facts of the case:
Present Writ Petition has been filed seeking to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction for clubbing and transferring the multiple First Information Reports (FIRs) registered against petitioner in different States to Court of competent jurisdiction at Panchkula, Haryana.
Findings of Court:
As far as State of Chhattisgarh and NCT of Delhi are concerned, since there is only one case each, the said case will proceed in those States in accordance with law and the question of clubbing does not arise. We have passed the above order in exercise of powers under Article 32 read with our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.
Result : Directions issued.
Key Points: - The Court directs merging of multiple FIRs with the earliest FIR within each State, and to try subsequent clubbed FIRs under the relevant special law if they pertain to special enactments (!) . - If the first FIR is under general law but subsequent FIRs are under special law, the clubbed case must be tried under the special law by the Special Court(s) (!) . - Investigating Officers may file supplementary charge-sheets after collating records from other clubbed FIRs; police reports under CrPC Section 173 in clubbed FIRs may be transferred and merged with the principal FIR (!) (!) . - Other offences not part of special enactments can also be tried by the Special Court under the concerned State legislation (!) (!) . - Bail granted in the principal proceeding must enure in favor of the petitioner in the other clubbed FIRs; if bail needs to cover offences under the Special Act, fresh bail applications may be required for those offences (!) . - The petition stands allowed with these terms; in states with single cases (Chhattisgarh, NCT Delhi) clubbing does not arise; proceedings follow Article 32 read with Article 142 (!) (!) .
JUDGMENT :
K.V. VISWANATHAN, J.
1. The present Writ Petition has been filed seeking to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction for clubbing and transferring the multiple First Information Reports (FIRs) registered against the petitioner in different States to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Panchkula, Haryana. Though this is the prayer made in the petition, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner states that he would only press for consolidation of the multiple FIRs in each of the States to one district within the respective States. It should also be noticed that as far as the original prayer made in the petition is concerned, on facts, it was clearly not maintainable since a similar prayer made by the petitioner in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 206 of 2020 filed in this Court on 20.07.2020 was rejected on 17.08.2020. Considering the fact that the petitioner is now seeking the alternative prayer and the respective States during the hearing have not objected to the same, we have decided to entertain the petition in the special facts and circumstances of the case.
2. In all, there are 64 FIRs registered in 10 States. The States concerned which are parties to the writ petition are Punjab (23 FIRs), Madhya Pradesh (2 FIRs), Haryana (6 FIRs), Gujarat (4 FIRs), Chhattisgarh (1 FIR), NCT of Delhi (1 FIR), Uttarakhand (5 FIRs), Rajasthan (5 FIRs), Uttar Pradesh (15 FIRs) and Himachal Pradesh (2 FIRs).
3. It should also be mentioned that, out of the above, already trial is concluded in some and in three cases convictions have been recorded. In two cases acquittals have been recorded, in two cases there have been cancellation reports, 15 cases are at the evidence stage and 21 cases are at the stage where charge-sheets have been filed. We are not concerned with the cases where convictions or acquittals have been recorded or in some cases where cancellation reports are filed.
4. The different FIRs are primarily for offences under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120B, 34, 263, 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). Some of the Sections referred to herein have been invoked in a few FIRs and in some all the Sections have been invoked. Along with this in some FIRs the local Acts of the State like the Gujarat Police Act, 1951, the Haryana Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishment Act, 2013, the Prize Chits And Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978, the Madhya Pradesh Nikshepakon Ke Hiton Ka Sanrakshan Adhiniyam, 2000 and the Uttarakhand Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 2005 have been invoked depending upon the State concerned.
5. The petitioner herein Ravinder Singh Sidhu has been in custody since 11.10.2018. He was the Managing Director of KIM Infrastructure and Developers Limited (for short ‘KIDL’). The petitioner along with other directors is alleged to have floated two schemes for allotment of developed land where customers were lured to be part of a lumpsum payment plan or a deferred payment plan.
6. When the matters stood thus, Writ Petition No. 3332 of 2010 was filed before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at its Gwalior Bench for inquiry against financial companies including ‘KIDL’ on the ground that the companies were seeking deposits from the public with promise of repayment with higher returns ranging from 15 to 20 per cent. The High Court ordered an inquiry by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The CBI conducted a preliminary investigation and submitted a report concluding that many of the named companies indulged in profiteering schemes without even having the capacity to repay along with the promised rate of return.
7. On 13.07.2012, the Writ Petition was disposed of by the High Court with a direction to the concerned authorities to take appropriate action in accordance with law. Pursuant thereto, the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) initiated inquiry against ‘KIDL’. KIDL’s attempt to get the scheme register
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 ruled against the clubbing of FIRs from multiple States citing unique factual circumstances in each case, which undermines practical consolidation.
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 emphasized the necessity of clubbing related FIRs for a unified investigation to prevent conflicting outcomes and ensure justice.
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....
The court ruled that clubbing of FIRs is not provided for in law, and the decision rests with police authorities upon representation by the petitioner.
Point of Law : The concept is of 'same offence' under Article 20(2) and section 300 Cr.PC. In case distinct offences are being committed there has to be independent trial for each of such offence bas....
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
