The court ruled against the clubbing of FIRs from multiple States citing unique factual circumstances in each case, which undermines practical consolidation.

JUDGMENT

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

1. The Writ Petition (Criminal) Dy. No.26673 of 2025 was filed by the father of the Partner and Additional Director and the friend of the Managing Director of a firm, in which the accused have now filed an application for substitution by Crl.M.P. No. 187608 of 2025, which is allowed. Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 269 of 2025, Writ Petition (Crl.) No.313 of 2025 and Writ Petition (Crl.) No.320 of 2025 are filed by persons in management of the firm, and Writ Petition (Crl.) No.319 of 2025 and Writ Petition (Crl.) No.321 of 2025 are filed by the wife and father of the petitioner in Writ Petition (Crl.) No.320 of 2025. There is no FIR as such registered against the petitioners in Writ Petition (Crl.) Nos. 319 of 2025 & No.321 of 2025, as we see from the records.

2. The petitioners have filed the above writ petition seeking clubbing of FIRs filed in various States and also seeks for clubbing of future FIRs to be filed against the firm, its partners and management officials. The case for clubbing of such FIRs is projected on the ground that the multiple FIRs have been lodged on the very same cause of action and the investigation and prosecution has to be brought under one roof, which would be enabled by clubbing all the FIRs to one single Police Station where the first crime was registered.

3. The State of Telangana, where the maximum number of crimes were registered, that too by the Economic Offences Wing, Cyberabad has filed counter affidavit resisting the prayers. It is pointed out that the crimes were committed by the accused in different places of the country, though the allegation is same, of defalcation of money received from unsuspecting investors. The modus operandi of the crime is the same, but the essential facts are different, and the individual crime proper has ramifications which are unique in each such transactions and also involves offences under the enactments in the different States; brought in to ensure protection of investors and depositors in financial institutions. Insofar as the State of Telangana is concerned, the offence alleged would also include those under Telangana Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999.

4. From the records, it is seen that there are crimes registered in the States of Karnataka, Maharashtra, West Bengal, Delhi, Andhra Pradesh and Rajasthan in addition to Telangana. Multiple FIRs within a State is only in Telangana, wherein four FIRs were registered and Maharashtra, wherein two FIRs were registered.

5. At the outset, it has to be observed that the prayers made in the Writ Petition for clubbing of FIRs from various States and also regarding the future FIRs are overambitious and outright illegal as has been noticed in Amandeep Singh Saran v. State of Delhi and Others , 2023 SCC Online SC 1851. The prayer regarding future FIRs is one which cannot be granted by any court of law. The further contention that a similar relief was granted in Radhey Shyam v. State of Haryana , W.P.(Crl.) No.75 of 2020 by order dated 12.05.2022 should be replicated here also, has been dealt with in Aman Deep Singh1. The power exercised under Radhey Shyam2 was under Article 142 of the Constitution of India that too with the consent of the States.

6. Reliance was also placed on Amish Devgan v. Union of India and Others , (2021) 1 SCC 1 wherein the petitioner – accused was a journalist who had been hosting and anchoring a debate show on a TV channel. The petitioner had, in the course of the debate, made some observations about a person revered by a community, which was alleged to have caused hurt and incited religious hatred towards a community. Seven FIRs were registered in various parts of the country. While finding that the petitioner could have approached the High Court for appropriate relief, since detailed arguments were addressed by both sides on maintainability of the FIRs and to avoid multiplicity of litigation, though this Court refused to quash the FIRs but direc