Writ Jurisdiction Not Appropriate For Adjudicating Complex Title Disputes; Mutation Entries Do Not Confer Ownership: Madhya Pradesh High Court Joint Account Holder Not Liable Under Section 138 NI Act If Not A Signatory To Dishonoured Cheque: Allahabad High Court Private Individuals Accepting Money Can Be Prosecuted Under MPID Act; Nomenclature As 'Loan' Irrelevant: Supreme Court Nomenclature Of Transaction As 'Loan' Irrelevant; If Ingredients Met, It Is A 'Deposit' Under MPID Act: Supreme Court Pleadings Must State Material Facts, Not Evidence; Deficiency In Pleading Cannot Be Raised For First Time In Appeal: Supreme Court Denial Of Remission Cannot Rest Solely On Heinousness Of Crime; Justice Doesn't Permit Permanent Incarceration In Shadow Of Worst Act: Supreme Court Second Application For Rejection Of Plaint Barred By Res Judicata If Earlier Order Attained Finality: Supreme Court Section 6(5) Hindu Succession Act Is A Saving Clause, Not A Jurisdictional Bar To Partition Suits: Supreme Court Sale Of Natural Gas Via Common Carrier Pipelines Is An Inter-State Sale; UP Has No Jurisdiction To Levy VAT: Supreme Court Mediclaim Reimbursement Not Deductible From Motor Accident Compensation; Tortfeasor Can’t Benefit From Claimant’s Prudence: Supreme Court Rules Of Procedure Are Handmaid Of Justice, Not Mistress; Striking Off Defence Under Order XV Rule 5 CPC Is Not Mechanical: Supreme Court Power To Strike Off Tenant's Defense Under Order XV Rule 5 CPC Is Discretionary, Not To Be Exercised Mechanically: Supreme Court Areas Urbanised Before 1959 Don't Require Separate Notification To Fall Under Delhi Rent Control Act: Delhi High Court Police Cannot Freeze Bank Accounts To Perform Compensatory Justice; Direct Nexus With Offence Essential: Bombay High Court FSL Probe Before Electronic Evidence Meets Section 65B Admissibility Standards: Gujarat High Court Court Shouldn't Adjudicate Rights At Stage Of Granting Leave Under Section 92 CPC, Only Prima Facie Case Required: Allahabad High Court Right To Seek Bail Based On Non-Furnishing Of 'Grounds Of Arrest' Applies Only Prospectively From November 6, 2025: Madras High Court Prior Exposure To Accused Before TIP Renders Identification Meaningless: Delhi High Court Acquits Four In Uphaar Cinema Murder Case No Particular Format Prescribed For 'Proposed Resolution' In No-Confidence Motion; Intention Of Members To Be Gathered From Document As A Whole: Orissa High Court Trial Court Cannot Grant Temporary Injunction Without Adverting To Allegations Of Fraud And Collusion: Calcutta High Court "Ganja" Definition Under NDPS Act Excludes Roots & Stems: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail As Seized Weight Included Whole Plants Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Doesn't Displace Section 37 NDPS Mandate In Commercial Quantity Cases: Orissa High Court

Multiplicity of Proceedings Not in Larger Public Interest” – Supreme Court Rejects Transfer of FIRs Across States, Allows Consolidation in Madhya Pradesh

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court today addressed the issue of consolidating FIRs registered in different states against an individual. The court, while exercising its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, decided to consolidate various FIRs filed in Madhya Pradesh but rejected the transfer of cases from Karnataka and Jharkhand to Madhya Pradesh.

The case, titled “2023 INSC 1060,” involved petitioner Amanat Ali, who sought the consolidation of FIRs registered against him in Madhya Pradesh, Karnataka, and Jharkhand for similar offences. The petitioner argued that such a move was necessary for a fair and speedy trial and to avoid the multiplicity of legal proceedings.

In delivering the judgment, the bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and Aravind Kumar observed, “Multiplicity of the proceedings will not be in the larger public interest and State also.” This statement underlines the court’s approach to handling cases involving multiple FIRs across different jurisdictions.

While the court acceded to the request for consolidation of FIRs within Madhya Pradesh, it held firm against transferring cases from other states. The court’s decision was influenced by the practical challenges and inconvenience that would be faced by complainants and witnesses if required to travel across states for legal proceedings.

Date of Decision: December 11, 2023

Amanat Ali  VS State of Karnataka and others

Latest Legal News