Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KUMAR, ALOK ARADHE, JJ.
The State (NCT) of Delhi – Appellant
Versus
Khimji Bhai Jadeja – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 74 of 2026 [Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 9198 of 2019]
Decided On : 06-01-2026
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 220 and 223 [Sections 243 and 246 of BNSS] – Amalgamation of complaints being part of same transaction – Under Sections 220(1) Cr.P.C. and 223(a) and (d) Cr.P.C., consolidated charges can be framed against several accused persons in relation to several offences, if such offences are committed during course of same transaction – Precedential law has laid down triple tests, though not to be applied cumulatively, to decide when separate actions can be treated as part of ‘same transaction’ – 1) unity of purpose and design; 2) proximity of time and place; and 3) continuity of action – These tests may be applied to ascertain whether a series of acts form part of same transaction or not – Consolidation of FIRs is permissible in law but that would have also depended upon conclusions to be arrived at after investigation – Consolidation of FIRs is permissible in law but that would have also depended upon conclusions to be arrived at after investigation – In present case, as a conspiracy is alleged, leading to multiple acts of cheating against different individuals, course adopted by Delhi Police in registering one FIR and treating complaints received from 1851 other complainants as statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C., was correct course of action to have been adopted at that stage. (Paras 19, 20 and 21)
Facts of the case:
State (NCT) of Delhi is aggrieved by the judgment dated 08.07.2019, whereby a Division Bench of High Court of Delhi answered Criminal Reference No. 1 of 2014. By said reference, Additional District & Sessions Judge – II, North-West District, Rohini Courts, Delhi1, had referred three questions of law to High Court of Delhi for its decision, under Section 395(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Findings of Court:
Inference to be drawn from charge-sheets, as filed, is left to Magistrate concerned to consider, so as to ascertain whether various acts of cheating attributed to the accused persons constitute part of ‘same transaction’, thereby bringing them within the ambit of Section 220(1) Cr.P.C. and Section 223 (a) & (d) Cr.P.C.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
Amalgamation of complaints that are part of the same transaction is permissible in law, but whether FIRs can be consolidated depends on the conclusions reached after investigation (!) (!) .
Consolidation of charges against multiple accused persons relating to several offences can be framed if such offences are committed during the same transaction, as determined by specific tests such as unity of purpose and design, proximity of time and place, and continuity of action (!) (!) .
The concept of ‘same transaction’ is determined by the connection of acts through proximity in time and place, common purpose, or sequence of actions. Not all elements need to co-exist; a series of connected acts may constitute a single transaction (!) (!) .
In cases involving multiple victims and offences, registering a single FIR and treating subsequent complaints as statements during investigation is considered appropriate when a conspiracy is alleged, as this approach aligns with the law and investigation procedures (!) (!) .
The stage of investigation is crucial in deciding whether offences can be consolidated; such decisions should not be made prematurely, and the investigation must establish whether acts are part of the same transaction (!) (!) .
When offences are part of the same transaction, the accused can be charged and tried together, and the complainants may have the right to file protest petitions if the final report is not accepted or if discharge occurs (!) .
The legal framework allows for consolidation of FIRs and charges if the acts are interconnected, but the final determination depends on the investigation's findings regarding the ‘same transaction’ criteria (!) (!) .
The court emphasized that the decision to consolidate charges or FIRs should be made based on the investigation's conclusion about the connection of acts, and such decisions are to be made at the appropriate stage of proceedings (!) (!) .
The judgment clarified that the questions raised by the reference were premature, as the investigation was ongoing, and the determination of whether acts constitute part of the same transaction should be made after thorough investigation (!) .
The court set aside the earlier high court’s answers regarding the amalgamation of complaints and FIRs, affirming that such decisions depend on the investigation's findings about the connection between acts (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific legal advice based on this document.
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KUMAR, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The State (NCT) of Delhi is aggrieved by the judgment dated 08.07.2019, whereby a Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi answered Criminal Reference No. 1 of 2014. By the said reference, the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-II, North-West District, Rohini Courts, Delhi1 [For short ‘Additional Sessions Judge’] had referred three questions of law to the High Court of Delhi for its decision, under Section 395(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.2 [For short ‘Cr.P.C.’] The questions read as under:
b. If in case the Hon'ble Court concludes that each deposit has to be treated as separate transaction, then how many such transactions can be amalgamated into one charge sheet?
(Note: As per the provisions of Section 219 Cr.P.C. and as observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Narinderjit Singh Sahni and Another vs. Union of India and Others, only three transactions in a particular year can be clubbed in a single charge sheet).
c. Whether under the given circumstances the concept of maximum punishment of seven years for a single offence can be pressed into service by the accused by clubbing and amalgamating all the transactions into one FIR with maximum punishment of seven years?
(Note: If this is done, this would be in violation of concept of Proportionality of Punishment as provided in the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the case of Narinderjit Singh Sahni vs. Union of India and Others, it has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that this cannot be done but in case if we go by the ratio laid down by the Delhi High Court in the case of State vs. Ramesh Chand Kapoor this is possible. Hence, this aspect requires an authoritative pronouncement by a larger Bench).”
3. The Division Bench answered the questions as follows:
Thus, our answer to question (b) is that in respect of each FIR, a separate final report (and wherever necessary supplementary/further charge sheets) have to be filed, and there is no question of amalgamation of the final reports that may be filed in respect of different FIRs. The amalgamation, strictly in terms of Section 219 Cr.P.C. would be considered by the Court/ Magistrate at the stage of framing of charge, since Section 219(1) mandates that where the requirements set out in the said Section are met, the accused “may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, any number of them not exceeding three.”
In our view, the aforesaid question [sic. (c)] does not survive in view of the answer to question (a) and (b). It would be for the Trial Court to consider the sentence to which the convict may be subjected as per law, keeping in view the well settled principles of sentencing. In this regard, we may only refer to Section 31 of the Cr.P.C. which, inter alia, provides that when a person is convicted at one trial of two or more offences, the Court, may subject to the provisions of Section 71 IPC, sentence him for such offences to the several punishments prescribed therefore which such Court is competent to inflict. It further provides that such punishments,
Amalgamation of complaints being part of same transaction – Consolidation of FIRs is permissible in law but that would depend upon conclusions to be arrived at after investigation.
Consolidation of FIRs is unwarranted when allegations involve distinct transactions and separate complainants.
Multiple FIRs alleging identical offences cannot be consolidated if they arise from distinct transactions involving different complainants and evidence.
The discretion to amalgamate cases under Section 223 of the Criminal Procedure Code is not obligatory and depends on the interest of justice, and the facts, allegations, and evidence must be common f....
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....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the determination of whether acts form part of the same transaction requires proximity of time, place, continuity of action, and community of ....
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
