Consolidation of FIRs is unwarranted when allegations involve distinct transactions and separate complainants.

ORDER

The petitioners are husband and wife. Petitioner No.1 is the Managing Director of Melkar Finance and Leasing Private Ltd ('the company' for short). Petitioner No.2 is one of the Directors of the Company. As many as 35 crimes have been registered against the company and the petitioners alleging that a total sum of Rs. 7,42,14,860/- was appropriated by them from different persons.

2. The prosecution alleges that the petitioners and the other accused induced the de facto complainants/victims to deposit money with the company by offering an assured rate of interest ranging from 13.25% to 13.50%. Acting upon the inducement, the victims deposited the amount with the company.

3. The Investigating Officer arrested the petitioners on 15.10.2025 and conducted searches at the corporate office of the company situated at Sakthan Nagar, Trissuur, the branch office located at Marar Road, Thrissur and at their residence at Kunnankulangara. In the search, the Investigating Officer seized computer hard disks , deposit - related documents, brochures, seal of the company, building lease agreement, fixed deposit receipts, transaction registers etc. They have been in judicial custody. The investigation is progressing. As many as 34 other crimes have also been registered against them. The Investigating Officer effected the formal arrest of the petitioners in the connected crimes. The petitioners seek consolidation of the various FIRs registered against them.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners Shri. Thomas Abraham and the learned Special Public Prosecutor Sri. P. Narayanan.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the settled law is that the multiplicity of the proceedings will not be in the larger public interest. The learned counsel relied on Radhey Shyam v. State of Haryana and others [2022 KHC 5870], Rahamathulla v. State of Tamil Nadu [ 2025 KHC 7292 ] and Ravinder Singh Sidhu v. State of Punjab [ 2025 (4) KHC 345 ] in support of his contention. The learned counsel submitted that the proper course to be adopted is to treat the first FIR as the principal FIR and all other FIRs as statements under Section 161 Cr.PC.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that as the offences are allegedly based on different facts, each victim has a right to prosecute his complaint against the petitioners. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the various crimes registered against the petitioners do not come under the definition 'same transaction'. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that only when the person accused of multiple offences committed in the course of the same transaction could be charged and tried together. The learned Public Prosecutor relied on State (NCT) Delhi v. Khimji Bhai Jadeja [SLP (Crl) No.9198 of 2019], and Anubhav Mittal and Ors. v. The State of Uttar Pradesh [ 2022 KHC 8024 ] and Narinderjit Singh Sahni v. Union of India and others [ (2002) 2 SCC 210 ] in support of his contentions.

7. In the statement filed by respondent No.3, it is pleaded that the facts and circumstances of each case are materially different. It is further submitted that each FIR has been filed by different complainants whose statements and grievances are independent of one another. It is the submission of respondent No.3 that the evidence in each case is specific to the particular FIR. It is also contended that each case is at different stage of investigation and therefore, consolidation may hamper the progress of ongoing investigation.

8. In Radhey Shyam v. State of Haryana and others , a three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court, taking note of multiple FIRs in connection with a network marketing scheme, directed the clubbing of all FIRs registered in 12 Sta