Future FIRs Cannot Be Clubbed — It’s Outright Illegal: Supreme Court Rejects Overambitious Plea for Nationwide Consolidation in Multi-State Fraud Case

“One Modus Operandi Doesn’t Make One Crime” – SC Declines Blanket Clubbing of FIRs in ₹Multi-Crore Financial Scam Across Seven States. Supreme Court of India delivered a decisive judgment in a complex financial fraud matter involving multiple FIRs across various States against the management of a firm allegedly involved in large-scale investor fraud. Supreme Court firmly rejected the prayer for nationwide clubbing of FIRs, ruling that “clubbing of future FIRs is overambitious and outright illegal.”

The petitioners, some of whom were already under arrest, sought to club all existing and potential future FIRs—lodged across Telangana, Karnataka, Maharashtra, West Bengal, Delhi, Andhra Pradesh, and Rajasthan—into one central investigation under the first registered crime.

“Different Victims, Different States, Different Transactions — You Cannot Merge Everything”

The Court made it clear that although the modus operandi of the alleged fraud may be similar, the offences were committed in distinct territorial jurisdictions, with different complainants and transaction specifics. Emphasizing the impracticality and illegality of a pan-India consolidation, the Bench of Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran ruled:

“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.”

The Court also sharply noted that such a sweeping relief was not even permissible under law, relying on the ruling in Amandeep Singh Saran v. State of Delhi, 2023 SCC Online SC 1851.

“You Can’t Use Article 142 for Blanket Clubbing Unless States Consent” – SC Differentiates Prior Precedents

The petitioners relied on earlier judgments, particularly Radhey Shyam v. State of Haryana (2022) and Amish Devgan v. Union of India (2021), where FIRs were consolidated. But the Court distinguished those cases as “fact-specific and consent-based”, stating:

“The power exercised under Radhey Shyam was under Article 142 of the Constitution of India that too with the consent of the States.”

In Amish Devgan, the FIRs were based on a single television broadcast, unlike the dispersed and localized financial defrauding involved here.

“Section 242 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha Doesn’t Help You Here”

The Court examined Section 242 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023, which allows trial of multiple offences of the same kind committed within a year. However, it held that the section does not override the territorial and transactional distinctions of the current case.

“The offences alleged would include those under local enactments such as the Telangana Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999. Each crime proper has ramifications which are unique.”

The Court emphasized that trial would require production of witnesses—many of whom are investors and depositors—from various States, making centralisation logistically and legally untenable.

“Limited Clubbing Permitted Within States – Telangana and Maharashtra FIRs Partially Consolidated”

Though the Court refused the pan-India clubbing, it allowed limited consolidation within States where multiple FIRs had been registered:

• In Telangana, the FIR registered at Madhapur, Cyberabad was transferred to the Economic Offences Wing, Cyberabad, where three other FIRs were pending.

• In Maharashtra, the FIR at Wagle Estate, Thane was transferred to Ambazari, Nagpur, where another FIR had already been registered.

However, the single FIRs from Karnataka, West Bengal, Delhi, Andhra Pradesh, and Rajasthan remained untouched.

“Accused Must Bear Cost of Witness Travel” – SC Safeguards Victim Access to Justice

In a notable direction to protect victims, the Court ordered that if prosecution witnesses have to travel due to the clubbing, the accused shall bear their travel and accommodation costs through the trial court.

“The Court trying the case shall award costs to defray the expenses of travel and residence, if necessitated for the purpose of examination of the witnesses, which shall be paid by the accused.”

This provision ensures that access to justice for complainants is not compromised due to consolidation of jurisdiction.

“No Court Can Grant Relief Against Future Crimes” – SC Cautions Against Pre-emptive Shield in Criminal Law

“No Coercive Steps for 6 Months — Accused to Approach Jurisdictional Courts for Regular Bail”

Considering that some of the petitioners were already in custody, the Court granted interim protection and directed that:

“They shall be released on bail on such conditions imposed by the Jurisdictional Magistrate… including that of cooperation in the investigation.”

Those against whom warrants were pending would not be arrested during the six-month protection window. All petitioners must appear before the respective jurisdictional courts within this period to apply for regular bail, failing which normal legal process would resume.

The Court made it clear: “Any failure to comply with the bail conditions would enable the Investigating Agency to approach the Court for cancellation of bail.”

“You Cannot Pre-Empt Law Enforcement by Asking Us to Club FIRs That Don’t Even Exist”

In one of the most significant declarations of principle in the judgment, the Court rejected the petitioners’ prayer to club future FIRs, holding it legally unsustainable:

“The prayer regarding future FIRs is one which cannot be granted by any court of law.”

This reinforces a constitutional limitation on anticipatory relief in criminal process, asserting that every FIR must be treated on its own legal merits, especially when filed by distinct aggrieved parties across various jurisdictions.

The Writ Petitions were disposed of with partial relief limited to FIR consolidation within Telangana and Maharashtra. All other major prayers were categorically rejected.

This ruling sets a critical precedent in white-collar crime jurisprudence: Similarity in fraud pattern does not justify blanket consolidation of criminal complaints arising from different victims, across different States, under different regulatory laws.

Date of Decision: September 26, 2025