The Supreme Court has rejected a batch of writ petitions praying for the consolidation of a number of First Information Reports (FIRs) filed in different states pertaining to an alleged multi-crore investment scam. The petitions were made by company personnel, family members and associates of a financial company which allegedly channeled money raised from investors.
The petitioners moved the top court to order clubbing of all existing and pending FIRs and investigation by one police station, contending that the charges were similar and arose out of the same cause of action. The Court, however, referred to the prayer for clubbing future FIRs as "overambitious and illegal," observing that no court of law is vested with jurisdiction to offer such blanket relief.
Opposition by States:
The State of Telangana, which has recorded the largest number of cases against the accused in its Economic Offences Wing, opposed the request. It contended that while modus operandi was generally the same, every complaint had different victims, transactions, and in a few, special enactments like the Telangana Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999. A few other states such as Karnataka, Maharashtra, Delhi, West Bengal, Andhra Pradesh, and Rajasthan had also filed FIRs.
Court.-Reasoning:
The Court made a differentiation between such cases as Amish Devgan v. Union of India, involving several FIRs from one common TV incident, and the current case, involving separate investors and transactions in each FIR. It reiterated that clubbing was not feasible because trials would entail interrogation of victims and witnesses from different states.
The Court also quoted precedents like T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala and Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash, observing that though more than one FIR on the very same incident cannot hold good, that principle cannot apply to distinct offences involving different victims, even if the mode of fraud was the same.
Limited Consolidation:
However, the Court directed consolidation in two states to prevent duplication:
- In Telangana, the FIR lodged at Madhapur, Cyberabad, was shifted to the Economic Offences Wing, Cyberabad, where there were three other FIRs already.
- In Maharashtra, the FIR at Wagle Estate, Thane City, was shifted to Ambazari, Nagpur City, where the other case was ongoing.
- Clubbing of FIRs from various states was specifically refused, citing practical challenges in prosecution.
Bail and Custodial Protection:
Noting the long imprisonment of certain petitioners, the Court allowed interim bail on conditions, with mandatory compliance with the investigation. For those against whom warrants were issued, immunity from arrest was provided for six months to allow them to approach regular bail before jurisdictional courts. The Court made it clear that non-cooperation would make investigative agencies entitled to move for cancellation of bail.
Conclusion:
The petitions were disposed off in these terms. The order pins down the Supreme Court's long track record of thought: consolidation of FIRs can, yes, be thought of where they stem from a single occurrence, but offences against several victims in different states cannot be consolidated into one basket because of practical and legal requirements.
Section 242, BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA - 2023
BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023
