1. Petition under Section 528 BNSS for clubbing multiple FIRs relating to non-payment of maturity proceeds of depositors of a cooperative society. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(MP) 739
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR
MILIND RAMESH PHADKE, J.
Anurag Bansal - Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others – Respondents
MISC. Criminal Case No. 46850 of 2025
Decided On : 05-01-2026
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Shri Anupam Verma, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Ms Kalpana Parmar, Public Prosecutor, Shri Mahendra Kumar Sharma, Adv.
For the Petitioner:Shri Anupam Verma, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Ms Kalpana Parmar, Public Prosecutor, Shri Mahendra Kumar Sharma, Adv.
Where multiple FIRs are filed based on identical allegations from a single transaction, the first FIR is treated as the principal FIR and subsequent FIRs as statements under Sections 161/162 CrPC, ensuring consolidated trials to prevent conflicting judgments and multiplicity of proceedings.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 528 - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 111, 316(2), 316(5), and 318(4) - Nikshepakon Ke Hiton Ka Sanrakshan Adhiniyam, 2000 - Section 6(1) - Multiple FIRs registered for non-payment of maturity proceeds to depositors - Clubbing and consolidation of FIRs - First FIR to be treated as principal FIR and subsequent FIRs treated as statements under Section 161/162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - To ensure expeditious adjudication and avoid divergent or conflicting outcomes (Paras 3 and 7).
(B) Criminal Procedure - Power of the High Court to consolidate proceedings in exceptional circumstances where allegations are substantially identical and arise from a common cause of action, thereby preventing multiplicity of proceedings (Para 6.9).
(C) Bail - Principle that if an accused is granted bail in connection with the principal FIR, such bail should be applicable to all other clubbed or merged cases unless canceled by a court of competent jurisdiction (Para 6.10).
Facts of the case:
A petitioner, serving as an employee of a multi-state cooperative society, was named in numerous FIRs registered across different police stations. The FIRs alleged offenses related to cheating and fraud due to the non-payment of maturity proceeds of investments made by depositors. The petitioner contended that because the allegations were substantially identical across all FIRs and arose from the same cause of action, the proceedings should be consolidated and tried by a single jurisdictional court to avoid conflicting judgments and for the convenience of the parties.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that the nature of the accusations in all the registered FIRs was identical, focusing on the failure of the cooperative society to repay deposits. Relying on judicial precedents, the court found that consolidating such proceedings is in the interest of the accused, the complainants, and the witnesses, and is necessary to prevent contradictory final outcomes from distinct trials.
Issues: Whether multiple FIRs registered at different locations based on identical allegations regarding non-payment of maturity proceeds should be clubbed and proceeded with as a single case under a principal FIR.
Ratio Decidendi: Where multiple FIRs are registered for the same cognizable offense or identical transactions, the first FIR registered in point of time shall be treated as the principal FIR. Subsequent FIRs shall be treated as statements under Section 161/162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This approach adheres to the principle that multiplicity of proceedings is not in the interest of the public and a consolidated investigation and trial promote judicial efficiency.
Result: Petition disposed of; all FIRs registered in the state relating to non-payment of maturity proceeds of the said cooperative society are clubbed and consolidated with the principal FIR, and all investigations, charge-sheets, and trials are transferred to the court having jurisdiction to try the principal FIR.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner seeks clubbing of FIRs due to identical allegations; State and complainant do not dispute applicability of earlier order. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 )
3. Petition disposed of; all FIRs clubbed and consolidated with the principal FIR before the jurisdictional court. (Para 7 , 8 )
4. Can multiple FIRs arising from the same transaction be clubbed together?
Yes, when allegations are identical and arise from the same transaction, the first FIR is treated as principal and subsequent FIRs as statements under Section 161/162 CrPC. (Para 6 , 7 )
5. Is clubbing of FIRs limited to those within the same state?
Yes, courts have limited consolidation to FIRs within the same state, as held in Odela where transfer from other states was rejected. (Para 6 )
6. Does bail granted in the principal FIR apply to all clubbed cases?
Yes, bail granted in the principal FIR remains applicable in all clubbed cases until cancelled by competent court for breach of conditions. (Para 6 )
7. Should cases where trial has commenced be transferred to the court of the principal FIR?
Yes, all investigations, charge-sheets, and trials, including those where cognizance has been taken, must be transferred to the court having jurisdiction over the principal FIR. (Para 6 , 7 )
ORDER :
MILIND RAMESH PHADKE, J.
This petition under Section 528 of BNSS has been filed by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:-
(i) issue an appropriate writ, order or direction that all the FIRS registered in any police station in Madhya Pradesh, relating to non- payment of maturity of depositors, be clubbed and proceeded with before the jurisdictional Special Court which is competent to try the FIR No. 273 dated 31.07.2025 registered at Police Station Palera, District-Tikamgarh, Madhya Pradesh, by treating this FIR as Principal FIR, as per the procedure laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court;
or
issue an appropriate writ, order or direction that all the FIRs registered in the police station of District Ashok Nagar & Vidisha, Madhya Pradesh, relating to non-payment of maturity of depositors, be clubbed and proceeded with before the jurisdictional Special Court which is competent to try the FIR No. 273 dated 31.07.2025 registered at Police Station Palera, District-Tikamgarh, Madhya Pradesh, by treating this FIR as Principal FIR, as per the procedure laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court;
of (ii) issue an appropriate writ, order or direction that no further FIR containing similar allegations be registered in the State Madhya Pradesh and all subsequent information/complaints containing similar allegations and or arising from common cause of action, relating to non-payment of maturity proceeds be treated as statements under Section 161/162 CrPC and accordingly be proceeded with, as one set of complaint/FIR in the respective Courts, as per the guidelines set out by the Hon'ble Apex court;
(iii) issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to the effect that in the cases wherein investigating officer had already filed police report/Challan under Section 173 CrPC before the concerned Court and the concerned Court has taken cognizance thereof, the said FIRs and criminal cases would also stand transferred and merged/clubbed along with the Principal FIR referred above and be tried by the Court having jurisdiction to try the case concerning the Principal FIR, as per the procedure established and elaborated by the Hon'ble Apex Court; and
(iv) issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to the effect that if applicant accused has been granted bail in connection with the principal FIR or in any other FIR which will stand clubbed/merged, the bail so granted in favour of any accused, must ensure be applicable in all cases, which have been clubbed, in favour of such accused until the court of competent jurisdiction cancels the same for any reason including breach of any bail condition.
(v) Pass such other/further order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the given facts and circumstances.
2. According to the case of the prosecution, the complainants themselves were agents of Lustiness Janhit Credit Cooperative Society Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “LJCC”) and were instrumental in mobilising and investing funds in the said society. The complainants lodged FIRs bearing Crime No. 570/2024 at Police Station Chanderi and Crime No. 67/2025 at Police Station Kotwali Ashok Nagar, District Ashok Nagar, against the applicant/petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 111 , 318(4), and 316(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, along with Section 6(1) of the Nikshepakon Ke Hiton Ka Sanrakshan Adhiniyam, 2000. An additional FIR has also been registered at Police Station Kotwali for offences under Sections 316(5) and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is merely an employee of LJCC, which is a Multi-State Cooperative Society duly registered under the provisions of the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 2002”). The society has been duly authorised by the Central Registrar, Ministry of Cooperation, Government of India, to carry on its business in accordance with its certificate of registration and registered bye- laws under the Act, 2002.
