Prayers Seeking Clubbing Of "Future FIRs" & FIRs From Various States Overambitious & Illegal: Supreme Court
The Apex Court rejected prayers for consolidation of FIRs across different States and future FIRs, holding that such relief is impermissible in law.
CJI B.R. Gavai, Justice K. Vinod Chandran, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court, while disposing of a writ petition seeking the clubbing of FIRs registered in different States and FIRs that may be registered in future, observed that such prayers are “overambitious and outright illegal” and that no court of law can grant a prayer relating to future FIRs.
The Apex Court was hearing writ petitions filed by the management and partners of a firm against which multiple FIRs had been registered in several States, alleging diversion of investor funds. The petitioners had sought consolidation of all FIRs into one investigation, including those that may be filed in the future.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice B. R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, while deciding the matter, observed: “At the outset, it has to be observed that the prayers made in the Writ Petition for clubbing of FIRs from various States and also regarding the future FIRs are overambitious and outright illegal, as has been noticed in Amandeep Singh Saran v. State of Delhi and Others. The prayer regarding future FIRs is one which cannot be granted by any court of law. The further contention that a similar relief was granted in Radhey Shyam v. State of Haryana by order dated 12.05.2022 should be replicated here also, has been dealt with in Aman Deep Singh. The power exercised under Radhey Shyam was under Article 142 of the Constitution of India that too with the consent of the States.”
Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu appeared for the petitioners, while Additional Solicitor General S.D. Sanjay represented the respondents.
Background
Petitions were filed in the Supreme Court seeking the consolidation of multiple FIRs registered in Telangana, Karnataka, Maharashtra, West Bengal, Delhi, Andhra Pradesh, and Rajasthan. The accused argued that the FIRs arose from the same set of allegations involving the alleged diversion of investor funds by the firm, and therefore, should be brought under one investigation.
The respondents, while opposing the plea, argued that though the modus operandi of the crime was similar, each transaction had distinct facts and involved different investors and state-specific legislations.
Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court rejected the petitioners’ reliance on earlier rulings like Radhey Shyam v. State of Haryana, seeking clubbing of FIRs that may be filed in the future, clarifying that the order in that case was passed under Article 142 of the Constitution with the consent of the States, and could not be used as a precedent for similar relief.
On the broader question of consolidation, the Apex Court held that the prayer to consolidate FIRs across different States was not legally sustainable. Referring to earlier precedents, the Bench emphasised that “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, being the investors of depositors, from the various locations. In which event the clubbing of FIRs from all the States would not be practical.”
The Bench, however, noted that in cases where multiple FIRs had been registered within the same State, consolidation was permissible.
Elaborating on the legislative position, the Bench observed that Section 242 of the BNSS expressly contemplates that when offences of the same kind occur within a twelve-month period, they can be tried together, but limited to five such offences in one trial.
In the matter at hand, the Supreme Court accordingly ordered the consolidation of certain FIRs within the same State where multiple cases had been filed. At the same time, the Court declined the request to club single FIRs registered in other States, observing that such consolidation was neither practical nor legally warranted.
The Court further observed that some petitioners had been under arrest and had spent considerable time in custody. It directed that they be released on bail subject to conditions imposed by the jurisdictional magistrates, including cooperation with the investigation. For those against whom warrants were pending, the Court ordered that they not be arrested for a period of six months, during which time they must appear before the jurisdictional courts and seek regular bail.
It was further clarified that during trial, if prosecution witnesses were required to travel from the location of the original FIR to the court to which the FIR had been transferred, the expenses of such travel and residence should be borne by the accused through the Court.
Conclusion
The writ petitions were accordingly disposed of, with the Supreme Court directing that any pending applications connected to the matter shall also stand closed.
Cause Title: Odela Satyam & Anr. Versus The State of Telangana & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1174)
Appearances
Petitioners: Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu with others.
Respondents: S.D. Sanjay, A.S.G., with others.
