Summary
Writ petition under Article 32 by the Managing Director of a company accused of running deposit schemes, facing 64 FIRs across 10 States, seeking consolidation of the FIRs. The Court declined the original prayer for transfer to one court (a similar prayer had been rejected in 2020) but, with the States' consent, directed that the FIRs in each State be merged with the earliest FIR of that State, to be tried by the Special Court where a State depositor-protection enactment is invoked.
Issues
- Whether multiple FIRs registered in different States over the same alleged deposit schemes should be clubbed, and if so on what basis.
- How clubbed FIRs, pending chargesheets and bail orders are to be treated after consolidation.
Provisions considered
- Articles 32 and 142, Constitution of IndiaThe Court entertained the petition in its special facts and passed the consolidation directions in exercise of its powers under Article 32 read with Article 142. (¶¶ 1, 22)
- Sections 161 and 173, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The subsequent FIRs in each State are to be treated as statements under Section 161 CrPC recorded in the principal FIR; where a police report under Section 173 has already been filed in a clubbed FIR and cognizance taken, that case too stands transferred and merged with the principal FIR, and the investigating officer may file supplementary chargesheets. (¶¶ 19, 20)
- Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with Sections 120B, 34, 263, 114, Indian Penal Code, 1860These were the offences alleged in the FIRs; the consolidation direction was confined to the IPC offences and the State enactments mentioned in the order. (¶¶ 4, 21)
Held
- The prayer for transferring all FIRs to one court at Panchkula was not maintainable, a similar prayer having been rejected by the Court in 2020; the petition was entertained only for the alternative prayer of consolidation within each State, to which the States had no objection at the hearing. (¶¶ 1, 9)
- Multiplicity of proceedings is not in the larger public interest, but since several States have invoked their local depositor-protection enactments, transferring cases out of a State would not serve the ends of justice; the correct course is to merge the FIRs with the earliest FIR registered in the State concerned. (¶ 10)
- Where the first FIR in a State is under the general law but the clubbed subsequent FIRs invoke a special enactment, the consolidated case must be tried by the Special Court under the special law, which may also try the other offences not falling under the special enactment. (¶¶ 10, 20)
- The first FIR in each State is the principal FIR; the subsequent FIRs are treated as Section 161 CrPC statements, the investigating officer may file supplementary chargesheets on collated material, and cases in which chargesheets have been filed and cognizance taken stand transferred and merged with the principal case. (¶¶ 19, 20)
- Bail granted in the principal case enures in the clubbed FIRs, but where the principal FIR covers only general-law offences and the clubbed FIRs attract the special enactment or other IPC offences not covered by the bail, the Special Court may insist on a fresh bail application for those offences, to be decided on merits. (¶ 20)
- Where a State has only one FIR (Chhattisgarh and NCT of Delhi), the question of clubbing does not arise and that case proceeds in accordance with law. (¶ 22)
Result
Writ petition allowed in terms of the consolidation directions: the FIRs in Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Punjab, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand merged with the earliest FIR in each State as tabulated; single cases in Chhattisgarh and Delhi to proceed separately; directions confined to the IPC and State-enactment offences mentioned in the order.