The Supreme Court of India has rejected a plea seeking to consolidate multiple First Information Reports (FIRs) filed across different states against a firm and its partners accused of defrauding investors. The bench, comprising Chief Justice B. R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, dismissed the plea as "overambitious and outright illegal," particularly regarding the request to include future FIRs.
The case involves a firm and its management facing numerous FIRs in states including Telangana, Karnataka, Maharashtra, West Bengal, Delhi, Andhra Pradesh, and Rajasthan. The petitioners argued that the FIRs, all related to the alleged diversion of investor funds, should be consolidated into a single investigation. The respondents, however, contended that each FIR involved distinct facts, different investors, and state-specific laws, even if the modus operandi was similar.
The Supreme Court emphasized the impracticality of clubbing FIRs across states, highlighting that each FIR was registered based on complaints from investors who claimed to have been defrauded by the firm. The court noted that consolidating FIRs from all states would be unfeasible, especially considering that trials would require producing witnesses (the investors) from various locations.
The Supreme Court drew a distinction from a previous case, Amish Devgan v. Union of India (2021), where FIRs were consolidated because they arose from a single incident—a televised statement that allegedly hurt religious sentiments. In the present case, the court observed that the FIRs were filed by different investors and depositors, each with separate victims and evidence.
While the Supreme Court rejected the plea for nationwide consolidation, it acknowledged that consolidating FIRs within the same state is permissible. For instance, in Telangana, where four FIRs were registered, the court directed that one FIR be transferred to the Economic Offences Wing (EOW). Similarly, in Maharashtra, where two FIRs existed, the court ordered the transfer of one FIR to another police station. However, the court declined to consolidate the single FIRs filed in Karnataka, West Bengal, Delhi, Andhra Pradesh, and Rajasthan.
The ruling clarifies the legal limits on consolidating cases and underscores the importance of considering the distinct facts, witnesses, and legal provisions involved in each FIR. The Supreme Court's decision aligns with the principle that nationwide consolidation of FIRs is impermissible when it involves different witnesses, evidence, and local laws. Clubbing of FIRs is only permissible when multiple FIRs arise from the same incident or transaction.
