The Supreme Court of India refused to club 53 FIRs across seven states in a Rs 49-crore investment scam case, questioning “What will happen to the rights of the victims,” while rejecting pleas filed by accused Upendra Nath Mishra and Kali Prasad Mishra.
The Supreme Court rejected a request to club 53 First Information Reports (FIRs) lodged across seven states against two individuals accused in a Rs 49-crore investment scam. The decision highlights the Court’s clear preference for a “victim-centric” approach over the practical convenience of the accused.
A three-judge bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi, declined to entertain the petition moved by the accused Upendra Nath Mishra and Kali Prasad Mishra. After the bench’s observations, senior advocate Aman Lekhi, appearing for the accused, withdrew the plea.
The criminal proceedings against the duo are presently pending in multiple states, including Odisha, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Goa, and Andhra Pradesh.
While seeking to merge the 53 cases, the defence argued that earlier Supreme Court decisions had allowed consolidation of multiple FIRs in large-scale fraud matters to support a speedy trial. However, the bench, headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant, strongly questioned this approach.
Chief Justice Surya Kant asked during the hearing.,
“What will happen to the rights of the victims of such crimes?”
He added,
“For investigation, I cannot club the FIRs. Such victims of fraud are also invisible victims of the judicial system which did not think about them.”
The CJI further noted that the criminal justice framework in India has evolved, pointing to recent legal amendments that formally recognize and protect victims’ rights.
Rejecting the defence contention that multiple instances of financial fraud should be treated as a single transaction merely because the accused are the same, the Court emphasized that each alleged fraud involves different victims and different amounts of money.
The CJI questioned,
“Is it fair to ask the victims of your crime to come from different places to one place at the convenience of the accused?”
Justice Joymalya Bagchi echoed the same concern, stressing that each allegation constitutes a separate and independent offence. He observed that the individual charges of fraud, cheating, and conspiracy are distinct in nature, asking,
“Why should the victims of such offences suffer?”
With the petition withdrawn, the accused will now face separate investigations and trials in all seven states where the alleged financial wrongdoing is said to have occurred.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE