No Arbitration Agreement, No Arbitrator: Supreme Court Voids Award Made Without Municipal Council's Consent, Calls Entire Proceedings "Coram Non Judice" Post-Disposal Miscellaneous Applications Maintainable Only In Rare Situations; Court Becomes Functus Officio After SLP Dismissal: Supreme Court Vague & Omnibus Allegations Against Relatives In Matrimonial Disputes Must Be Nipped In The Bud; 7-Year Delay In FIR Fatal: Supreme Court State Can Withdraw Electricity Duty Exemption For Captive Power Plants In Public Interest But Must Give One-Year Notice Period: Supreme Court DSC Personnel Entitled To Second Pension; Shortfall In Service Up To 12 Months Can Be Condoned: Supreme Court Person Professing Christianity Cannot Claim Scheduled Caste Status To Invoke SC/ST Act: Supreme Court Except Matters One May, But Exclude Justice One Cannot: Supreme Court Restores Arbitral Award, Holds State Cannot Be Judge In Its Own Cause On Disputed Breach When State Requisitions Your Vehicle For Elections And It Kills Someone, The State Pays — Not Your Insurer: Supreme Court Land Acquisition | Financial Burden Cannot Defeat Constitutional Right to Just Compensation: Supreme Court Unsigned Charge Is A Curable Irregularity, Won't Vitiate Trial Unless 'Failure Of Justice' Is Shown: Supreme Court Tenant Files Fresh Petition Before Rent Authority After Supreme Court Dismisses SLP, Review And Misc Application — Court Calls It "Gross Abuse of Process", Voids Restoration Order Taxation Law | Exemption For Naphtha Depends On 'Intended Use' At Procurement, Not Actual Exclusive Use: Supreme Court Army's Own Grading System Worked Against Women Officers For Years — Supreme Court Grants Permanent Commission, Pension To Short Service Women Officers

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