The Supreme Court ruled that the “prayer for future FIRs is overambitious and outright illegal,” rejecting the clubbing of FIRs across States, clarifying legal limits on consolidation of cases.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: In a judgment, the Supreme Court of India recently disposed of writ petitions filed by the management and partners of a firm facing multiple FIRs across various States, including Telangana, Karnataka, Maharashtra, West Bengal, Delhi, Andhra Pradesh, and Rajasthan. The petitions sought the consolidation of all FIRs, including those that may be registered in the future, alleging diversion of investor funds.
Background of the Case
The petitioners argued that the multiple FIRs arose from the same set of allegations, primarily related to the alleged diversion of investor funds, and therefore, a single investigation should be conducted. On the other hand, the respondents opposed the plea, highlighting that each FIR involved distinct facts, different investors, and state-specific laws, despite a similar modus operandi.
Supreme Court’s Observations
A Bench comprising Chief Justice B. R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran rejected the prayers to club FIRs registered across different States and those that might be filed in the future. The Court described such prayers as “overambitious and outright illegal”, referring to precedents like Amandeep Singh Saran v. State of Delhi.
Regarding reliance on the Radhey Shyam v. State of Haryana ruling, the Bench clarified that the order in that case was passed under Article 142 of the Constitution with the consent of the States, and could not be applied as a precedent for similar relief.
The Supreme Court emphasized that clubbing FIRs across States would be impractical, noting:
“FIRs were registered on the complaints of the investors of depositors who were alleged to have been duped by the firm diverting the funds leading to loss of their life’s savings. We cannot forget that after investigation if a charge sheet is filed, the trial will have to be proceeded with, producing witnesses from various locations.”
However, the Court observed that consolidation of FIRs within the same State, where multiple cases had been filed, is permissible. The Bench also referred to Section 242 of the BNSS, which allows offences of the same kind occurring within a twelve-month period to be tried together, limited to five offences in one trial.
Court Orders
- Partial Consolidation: FIRs within the same State can be consolidated.
- No Clubbing Across States: FIRs registered in different States will continue to proceed independently.
- Future FIRs: Courts cannot grant prayers related to FIRs that may be registered in the future.
- Bail Orders:
- Petitioners in custody were directed to be released on bail, subject to conditions imposed by the jurisdictional magistrates.
- For those against whom warrants were pending, the Court granted a six-month period during which no arrest should be made, provided they cooperate with the investigation.
- Trial Expenses: If witnesses are required to travel due to FIR transfers, the accused will bear the costs of travel and residence.
Appearance:
Petitioners: Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu with others
Respondents: S.D. Sanjay, A.S.G., with others
Case Title:
Odela Satyam & Anr. Versus The State of Telangana & Ors.
Diary No.26673 of 2025
Read Judgment: