Multiple FIRs Arising From Identical Financial Scheme Can Be Clubbed And Transferred To First FIR Court: Bombay High Court

"The law on clubbing of FIRs and transferring them to a Special Court for a common trial in offences registered under a similar scheme floated by a particular company or a group of companies is now well settled." Bombay High Court has held that multiple First Information Reports (FIRs) registered across different jurisdictions based on identical allegations under a common financial scheme can be consolidated and transferred to a single court trying the earliest FIR.

A division bench comprising Justice A. S. Gadkari and Justice Kamal Khata observed that "clubbing of FIRs would facilitate the efficient administration of justice to expedite the trial," thereby preventing an accused from being subjected to oppressive multiplicity of criminal proceedings across various districts.

The petitioner, a director and promoter of three multi-state cooperative credit societies and allied business entities, was arraigned as an accused in ten distinct FIRs across Maharashtra under the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 (MPID Act), and the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978. Aggrieved by facing parallel prosecutions across multiple districts for identical allegations of non-repayment of deposits following a debit freeze on his accounts, he approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking consolidation and a unified trial before one court.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether multiple FIRs registered across different jurisdictions alleging financial fraud and default under the same investment scheme can be clubbed and transferred to the court seized of the first FIR to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

Settled Jurisprudence On Clubbing Of FIRs In Investment Schemes

Examining the legal framework governing multiple criminal proceedings for similar transactions, the bench reiterated that the jurisprudence concerning the consolidation of criminal cases registered under an identical scheme floated by a corporate entity or group of companies is well settled. The court emphasized that requiring an accused to stand trial before separate courts across multiple jurisdictions for essentially the same core acts of omission and commission defeats the ends of justice.

In reaffirming this legal position, the bench placed extensive reliance on the Supreme Court's ruling in State (NCT) of Delhi v. Khimji Bhai Jadeja, which comprehensively synthesized previous landmark precedents on the subject. The court surveyed judgments including Amanat Ali v. State of Karnataka, Amish Devgan v. Union of India, Ravinder Singh Sidhu v. State of Punjab, and Radhey Shyam v. State of Haryana, noting that multiplicity of proceedings runs contrary to the larger public interest and the administrative interest of the State.

Subsequent Complaints Treated As Section 161 CrPC Statements

"Multiplicity of proceedings would not be in the larger public interest and the correct course of action would be to merge the later FIRs with the earliest FIR"

The High Court drew specific attention to the Supreme Court's decision in Alok Kumar v. State of Bihar, wherein eighty-one FIRs were consolidated by directing the initial FIR to be treated as the substantive, lead FIR while all subsequently filed complaints were treated as witness statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). The bench also adverted to Satinder Singh Bhasin v. State of Uttar Pradesh, where the apex court consolidated over a hundred FIRs concerning a bike scheme to proceed as a single trial.

Applying these doctrinal principles to the facts at hand, the bench scrutinized the ten FIRs pending against the petitioner across diverse police stations, including Dhule, Nashik, Ahilyanagar, Beed, Satara, Mumbai, and Thane. The court noted that all ten prosecutions were rooted in identical allegations wherein the petitioner allegedly accepted public deposits promising lucrative returns and subsequently defaulted in repayment.

Consolidation Facilitates Efficient Administration Of Justice

Finding merit in the plea for consolidation, the bench observed that since the underlying foundation, role attributed to the petitioner as promoter-director, and alleged modus operandi remained uniform across all complaints, bifurcated trials would severely prejudice judicial expediency. The court ruled that consolidating the proceedings before the court seized of the earliest FIR would streamline the trial process and avoid contradictory outcomes.

"In our view, clubbing of FIRs would facilitate the efficient administration of justice to expedite the trial of all the cases mentioned above."

The bench accordingly directed the Registrar (Judicial-I) to transmit copies of the judgment to every court where charge-sheets have been submitted in connection with the subsequent nine FIRs. All such proceedings were ordered to be transferred forthwith to the competent court trying the initial case arising out of C.R. No. 209 of 2019, registered with Mumbai Naka Police Station and investigated by the Economic Offences Wing (EOW), Nashik. The court mandated that this inter-court transfer exercise be completed within thirty days.

Trial Court Empowered To Record Depositions Via Video Conferencing

Addressing the practical challenges faced by investors and prosecution witnesses, the High Court issued specific directions to mitigate inconvenience to depositors. The bench authorized the trial judge at Nashik to explore and permit the recording of depositions of witnesses and investors through video conferencing wherever appropriate, cautioning that physically attending witnesses must not be subjected to repeated, harassing appearances.

Accused Directed To Bear Travel And Accommodation Costs Of Witnesses

To balance the equities and ensure that depositors are not financially burdened when summoned to appear physically at Nashik, the court imposed a mandatory financial condition on the petitioner. The bench ordered the petitioner to bear all expenses incurred by witnesses for travel, meals, and lodging, specifically prescribing the provision of First or Second Class AC train tickets, an allowance of Rs. 2,000 per day for food, and accommodation in at least an 'A-Grade' hotel.

The Bombay High Court allowed the writ petition, directing the consolidation and transfer of all ten FIRs to the court trying the earliest case in Nashik within thirty days. The ruling affirms the procedural safeguard that multiple prosecutions arising from a single financial venture should be unified before one trial court to expedite justice while insulating witnesses through technological solutions and fully compensated expenses.

Date of Decision: 22nd October, 2026