Article 32 | Cross-State Transfer Of FIRs Involving State-Specific Depositors Protection Acts Denied; Accused Granted Liberty To Seek Intra-State Clubbing Before High Courts: Supreme Court

"In the circumstances, we find that the ends of justice would be met if we reserve liberty to the petitioners herein... to seek clubbing of the FIRs which are more than one in the States of Karnataka and Gujarat by initiating an appropriate proceeding before the respective jurisdictional High Courts." Supreme Court, in a notable order, declined to transfer and consolidate multiple first information reports registered across different States to a single investigating agency, while granting liberty to the accused to approach the respective jurisdictional High Courts for intra-state clubbing of multiple FIRs.

A bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Augustine George Masih observed that where offences involve both the Indian Penal Code and distinct State enactments—such as the Protection of Interest of Depositors Acts—the appropriate recourse is to seek consolidation of FIRs within each respective State and utilize video conferencing facilities before the Trial Courts.

The petitioners, a husband and wife, approached the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus to club and transfer multiple FIRs registered against them across Maharashtra, Gujarat, Karnataka, and Punjab to a single investigating jurisdiction or centralised agency. The criminal cases stemmed from diverse allegations under Sections 406, 409, 419, 420, 114, and 120-B of the IPC, the Information Technology Act, and State-specific investor protection legislations.

The primary question before the court was whether criminal proceedings and FIRs initiated in multiple States involving both the Indian Penal Code and distinct State enactments can be transferred and clubbed into a single jurisdiction under Article 32. The court was also called upon to determine whether the accused could instead be relegated to the respective High Courts to seek intra-state clubbing alongside procedural protection through virtual appearances.

Multiplicity Of State-Specific Depositors Protection Acts Precludes Inter-State Transfer

The petitioner had argued that as an accused facing simultaneous police inquiries across different jurisdictions, being exposed to concurrent investigations in four different States impinged upon personal rights and caused immense hardship. Relying upon the precedent in Amit Katyal v. State of Haryana, the petitioner contended that all pending FIRs ought to be consolidated and transferred to Maharashtra where the first FIR had originally been lodged.

Respective States Must Investigate Local Enactments

The respondent States opposed the prayer for an all-encompassing inter-state transfer, pointing out that each State was conducting an investigation tailored to local statutory frameworks in addition to the IPC. In Maharashtra and Gujarat, the complainants had specifically invoked the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (MPID) Act and the Gujarat Protection of Interest of Depositors (GPID) Act respectively, which are State legislations that cannot be investigated interchangeably by an external State police mechanism.

The bench took conscious note of this jurisdictional barrier, highlighting that distinct statutory regimes governed the proceedings in different territories. The court noted that apart from IPC offences, the petitioner was facing investigations in Maharashtra and Gujarat under local investor protection statutes, alongside provisions of the Information Technology Act invoked in Karnataka.

Court Distinguishes Precedents And Formulates Dual Relief

Evaluating the legal matrix in light of earlier authorities, the Supreme Court considered its precedents in Amandeep Singh Saran v. State of Delhi, Radhey Shyam v. State of Haryana, and Odela Satyam v. State of Telangana. Balancing the rights of the accused with the statutory competence of the investigating agencies, the bench ruled that complete consolidation into a single State was unviable in view of the diverse local enactments.

Liberty Reserved To Approach Jurisdictional High Courts For Intra-State Clubbing

The bench held that the ends of justice would be appropriately served by granting the petitioners liberty to approach the respective High Courts for clubbing multiple FIRs that fall within each individual State. This mechanism allows the High Courts to consolidate territorial proceedings within their borders without destabilising State-specific statutory prosecutions.

The court explicitly directed that the petitioners could seek clubbing of multiple FIRs registered within Karnataka and Gujarat by instituting appropriate proceedings before the High Court of Karnataka and the Gujarat High Court respectively. It further directed that a similar procedure shall ensue in the event multiple FIRs are pending within the State of Punjab or the State of Maharashtra.

Video Conferencing Permitted To Alleviate Procedural Hardship

To safeguard the accused from the physical burden of appearing before multiple criminal courts across various States, the Supreme Court permitted the petitioners to participate in proceedings virtually. The bench clarified that the petitioners are at liberty to appear through video conferencing facilities, subject to obtaining requisite permission from the concerned Trial Courts.

The bench also observed that the identical directions and liberty to seek intra-state consolidation alongside virtual appearances would enure to the benefit of the petitioners if any fresh or existing FIRs emerge in other States across the country.

Trial Courts Must Permit Virtual Appearance Upon Application

Disposing of the writ petitions filed by both spouses, the Supreme Court struck a balance between preserving the statutory mandate of State police forces under local enactments and safeguarding the procedural rights of accused persons facing multi-jurisdictional proceedings. The ruling confirms that while pan-India clubbing may be refused where localized Special Acts are involved, High Courts remain empowered to consolidate intra-state FIRs and Trial Courts should facilitate video conferencing.

Date of Decision: September 18, 2026