Summary
Setting aside the Delhi High Court's answers to a reference, the Supreme Court held that where a criminal conspiracy leads to cheating of many depositors, the police may register one FIR and treat the other complaints as statements under Section 161 CrPC; whether the offences form the same transaction, permitting joint charges and trial under Sections 220(1) and 223(a) and (d) CrPC, is for the Magistrate after investigation.
Issues
- Whether, in a conspiracy to induce and cheat a large number of depositors, each deposit is a separate transaction requiring a separate FIR, or all complaints can be clubbed into one FIR with the other complainants as witnesses.
- Whether separate final reports are needed for each transaction and how many transactions can be joined in one charge sheet.
- Whether the reference by the Additional Sessions Judge under Section 395(2) CrPC was premature.
Provisions considered
- Section 218(1), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Treated as the general rule requiring a separate charge and separate trial for every distinct offence, to which Sections 219 to 223 are exceptions. (¶ 19)
- Section 219, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Permits up to three offences of the same kind within a year to be tried together (five under Section 242 BNSS); it governs only where the offences are found to be distinct transactions. (¶¶ 19, 20)
- Section 220(1), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Allows one trial for offences committed in one series of acts forming the same transaction; whether the acts of cheating form the same transaction is for the Magistrate on the chargesheets. (¶¶ 19, 20, 22)
- Section 223(a) and (d), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Permit several accused to be charged and tried together for the same or different offences committed in the course of the same transaction; applied together with Section 220(1). (¶¶ 19, 20, 22)
- Sections 161 and 162, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Following T.T. Antony and Amish Devgan, later complaints about the same transaction are treated as statements in the investigation of the first FIR rather than as fresh FIRs. (¶¶ 13, 15, 21)
- Section 120B, Indian Penal Code, 1860Since the chargesheets alleged a criminal conspiracy leading to multiple acts of cheating, registering one FIR was the correct course at that stage. (¶ 21)
- Section 71 IPC; Sections 31 and 325 CrPC, Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Sentencing on conviction must follow these provisions depending on the facts and findings established. (¶ 22)
Held
- Whether separate acts form the 'same transaction' is judged by unity of purpose and design, proximity of time and place, and continuity of action; these tests need not all be satisfied together. (¶¶ 11, 20)
- Narinderjit Singh Sahni, which treated each deposit as a separate transaction, did not analyse the statutory provisions or case law on offences committed in the same transaction, and later decisions, including of three-Judge Benches, reflect the present position permitting consolidation of FIRs. (¶¶ 16, 18)
- The reference was premature, since while investigation was ongoing it could not be known whether the offences formed part of the same transaction; consolidation of FIRs is permissible in law but depends on the outcome of investigation. (¶ 21)
- As the chargesheets alleged a conspiracy under Section 120B IPC leading to multiple acts of cheating, the police rightly registered one FIR and treated the complaints of the other 1,851 complainants as statements under Section 161 CrPC. (¶ 21)
- The Magistrate must decide from the chargesheets whether the acts of cheating form the same transaction; if so, they may be charged and tried together under Sections 220(1) and 223(a) and (d) CrPC, and if not, separate trials follow subject to Section 219 CrPC (Section 242 BNSS). (¶¶ 20, 22)
- Complainants treated as witnesses in the first FIR are entitled to file protest petitions if a closure report is filed or discharge is contemplated, and the Magistrate must consider them on merits. (¶¶ 13, 22)
Result
Appeal allowed; the High Court's answers to questions (a) and (b) in Criminal Reference No. 1 of 2014 set aside to that extent.