Multiple FIRs Relating To Same Transaction Must Be Clubbed With Principal FIR To Prevent Abuse Of Process: Allahabad High Court

"The sweeping power of investigation does not warrant subjecting a citizen each time to fresh investigation by the police in respect of the same incident, giving rise to one or more cognizable offences, consequent upon filing of successive FIRs." Allahabad High Court, in a significant ruling, held that multiple FIRs arising from the same transaction or incident must be consolidated with the principal FIR to prevent the abuse of the legal process and ensure a unified, effective investigation.

A bench comprising Justice Chandra Dhari Singh and Justice Tarun Saxena observed that the "test of sameness" is the decisive criterion for determining whether successive FIRs should be treated as statements under Section 161 CrPC (Section 180 BNSS) and merged into a single case.

The petitioner, an ordinary member of the Loni Urban Multi-State Credit & Thrift Co-operative Society (LUCC), was named in numerous FIRs lodged across various police stations in District Lalitpur. The complainants alleged that they were induced by the society’s agents to deposit money under a scheme promising to double their maturity amounts, which were ultimately defaulted upon. Seeking relief from the mounting litigation and risk of multiple arrests, the petitioner moved the High Court, seeking a writ of mandamus to club all subsequent FIRs with the first registered complaint (Case Crime No. 612 of 2024) as the "Principal FIR."

The primary question before the court was whether the registration of multiple FIRs for a series of complaints arising from a common business transaction and identical allegations constituted an abuse of the statutory power of investigation. The court was further tasked with determining the applicability of the "test of sameness" to decide whether these successive complaints represented distinct incidents or part of one continuous transaction, thereby necessitating the consolidation of proceedings.

Applying the Test of Sameness

The court extensively reviewed the principles established in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala and Babubhai v. State of Gujarat. It emphasized that while the police possess a statutory right to investigate cognizable offences, this power is not absolute and cannot be utilized to subject an accused to endless cycles of fresh investigations for the same occurrence. The bench noted that the "test of sameness" requires an examination of whether the FIRs involve the same incident, proximity of time and place, and unity of purpose.

"The court has to examine the facts and circumstances giving rise to both the FIRs and the test of sameness is to be applied to find out whether both the FIRs relate to the same incident in respect of the same occurrence or are in regard to incidents which are two or more parts of the same transaction."

Unity of Transaction in Multi-Victim Frauds

 In analyzing the facts, the court found that the foundation of all the FIRs was identical, involving the same society, the same modus operandi, and allegations that were fundamentally similar. Relying on State (NCT Delhi) v. Khimji Bhai Jadeja, the court held that instances of cheating carried out in pursuance of a common conspiracy constitute "parts of the same transaction," even if they involve different complainants across various locations.

Avoiding Multiplicity of Proceedings

 The court underscored that permitting multiple FIRs to proceed independently in different jurisdictions would result in conflicting findings and significant prejudice to the accused. By mandating the consolidation of these cases, the High Court ensures that the investigation is conducted in a coordinated manner, which also secures the defendant’s right to mount a meaningful defense in a single forum.

"Permitting multiple FIRs and investigations in different jurisdictions on the same set of facts would not only be contrary to the settled legal position, but would also result in avoidable multiplicity of proceedings, conflicting findings and serious prejudice to the petitioners."

Final Directions and Consolidation

The High Court directed that Case Crime No. 612 of 2024 shall be treated as the Principal FIR. All subsequent FIRs filed across different police stations in relation to the same society deposits are to be clubbed with this principal case, with their contents henceforth treated as statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC (or Section 180 BNSS). The court further ordered that in cases where a charge-sheet has not been filed, the investigations must be transferred to the jurisdiction of the Principal FIR. Where cognizance has already been taken by lower courts, those cases are to be transferred and consolidated to be tried by the court having jurisdiction over the Principal FIR.

The ruling serves as a vital precedent against the practice of "FIR shopping" or the fragmentation of criminal investigations into a single transaction. By enforcing the consolidation of cases, the Allahabad High Court has reaffirmed the balance between the state's power to investigate and the citizen's fundamental rights against repetitive prosecution and harassment.

Date of Decision: 23 September 2026