Clubbing Of Criminal Trials | No Basis To Direct Consolidation If Connected Proceedings Have Already Concluded: Delhi High Court

Delhi High Court, in a ruling dated September 28, 2026, dismissed a petition seeking the transfer and clubbing of a long-pending criminal trial, holding that the precedent regarding the consolidation of interconnected matters is inapplicable once the related proceedings have already reached a conclusion.

A bench of Justice Saurabh Banerjee observed that inherent powers under the law cannot be invoked to consolidate cases when the "connected" proceedings are no longer active, thereby rendering the plea for a joint trial infructuous.

The petitioner, facing trial in FIR No. 207/2007, moved the High Court seeking the clubbing of his case with three other previously concluded FIRs (180/2007, 181/2007, and 182/2007). He contended that all these matters arose from the same transaction and that, per the Supreme Court’s mandate in Amit Katyal v. State of Haryana, they ought to be tried together to ensure judicial consistency and avoid prejudice. The petitioner also challenged a trial court order concerning the denial of his right to lead defense evidence and alleged bias against the presiding judge.

The primary question before the court was whether it could exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, to consolidate a pending trial with three other matters that had already attained finality. The court was also called upon to determine if the trial court’s refusal to allow further defense evidence violated the principles of a fair trial under Section 243 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

Irrelevance of Precedent Where Proceedings Have Concluded

The court clarified that the reliance on Amit Katyal v. State of Haryana (2026 INSC 509) was misplaced in the present factual matrix. Because the proceedings in the other three FIRs had already culminated in a closure, there was no active judicial proceeding with which the current case could be merged.

Court Rejects Allegations of Bias

The court noted that the petitioner had a history of seeking transfers on various pretexts over a period of 19 years. Regarding the allegations of judicial bias, the bench found these assertions entirely meritless, noting that they were "bereft of any concrete material/evidence in support thereof."

No Justification For Interference

The court observed that the trial court was acting in compliance with a previous High Court order to expedite the disposal of the long-pending trial. It was noted that the petitioner had already filed his written statement under Section 313(5) of the CrPC, indicating that the trial was nearing its logical conclusion.

"The assertions made in the present petition do not exude any confidence in this Court to proceed therewith."

Concluding that there were no justifiable grounds to invoke its inherent jurisdiction, the High Court dismissed the petition in limine. The court refused to disrupt the ongoing trial, emphasizing the necessity of bringing a 19-year-old case to a final adjudication rather than entertaining dilatory tactics.

Date of Decision: 28 September 2026