SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Ker) 1366

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
Prithvik K.J., S/o. Jayan – Petitioner 
Versus
State Of Kerala. Represented By The Chief Secretary, Home Department, Government Secretariat and Ors. – Respondents
W.P. (Crl.) No. 801 of 2024
Decided On : 20-05-2025


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Sarath Babu Kottakkal, Archana Vijayan
For the Respondent: Sri. Hrithwik CS, SR.PP

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.

Headnote:

(A) Criminal Procedure Code - No specific provision for clubbing FIRs - The petitioner sought to club multiple FIRs alleging similar offences for a unified investigation, citing the lack of a provision in the Cr.P.C. or BNSS for such action. (Paras 1-3)

(B) Representation to Police Authorities - The court directed the petitioner to file a representation to the State Police Chief regarding the grievances raised, allowing the police to consider the matter. (Paras 2-3)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition to club FIRs registered across different districts alleging similar offences, arguing for a single investigating agency.

Findings of Court:
The court did not address the merits of the case but allowed the petitioner to file a representation to the State Police Chief for consideration.

Issues: The main issue was whether the FIRs could be clubbed for investigation despite being registered in different districts.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the decision to club FIRs lies with the police authorities, as there is no provision in the law for such clubbing.

Result: Writ petition disposed of with directions.

JUDGMENT :

(P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.)

The writ petition (crl) is filed with following prayers :

I. “To issue an order/direction clubbing together all the crimes mentioned as per Exhibit PI to P35 registered against the petitioner alleging offences and circumstances of a similar nature.

II. To issue an order/direction transferring all the crimes mentioned as per Exhibit P1 to P35 registered against the petitioner alleging offences of similar nature to any court this Hon'ble Court deems as fit.

III. To issue an order/direction that the respondents shall comply with the procedure contemplated under S.41A of the CEPC or S.35 of the BNSS, whichever is applicable, in all crimes registered hereafter alleging offences and circumstances of a similar nature as those of the crimes already registered.

IV. To grant such other reliefs prayed for by the petitioner in the interest of Justice.

V. To dispense the above writ petition with English Translation of the Malayalam Documents.” [SIC]

2. The main prayer in this writ petition (Crl.) is to club all crimes as evident by Exts. P1 to P35 FIRs registered against the petitioner alleging similar offences. According to the petitioner, the offences are similar and the circumstances in which the cases are registered, are also similar. Therefore, it is submitted that these cases may be club together and one investigating agency can be directed to investigate the matter. It is also the case of the petitioner that Exts.P1 to P35 are registered at different police stations in Thrissur, Alappuzha, Kottayam, Pathanamthitta districts etc.

3. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the victims in these cases are different and clubbing may not be possible at this stage. I do not want to make any observation about the same. Admittedly, there is no provision in the Cr.P.C. or BNSS to club FIR. The petitioner is relying some decisions of the Apex Court for clubbing the FIRs. Whether the investigation in these FIRs can be clubbed together, is to be decided by the police authorities first. Admittedly, the cases are registered in different districts. Therefore, the petitioner can be allowed to file a representation before the State Police Chief. If such a representation is received, the State Police Chief will consider the same and pass appropriate orders. I make it clear that I have not considered the matter on merit and the State Police Chief is free to pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a time frame.

Therefore, this writ petition (crl.) is disposed of with the following directions:

1) The petitioner is free to file a representation narrating the grievance raised in this writ petition before the 2nd respondent within two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

2) If such a representation is received, the 2nd respondent will consider the same and pass appropriate orders, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

3) The petitioner will produce a certified copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition, while submitting the representation.

4) All the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition are left open.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top