Subsequent Declaration Of Juvenility Does Not Vitiate Conviction On Merits: Supreme Court Borrowers Cannot Ignore Bank Accounting Systems And Suspense Accounts To Claim Arbitrary Reductions In Loan Dues: Supreme Court Re-employed Judicial Officers Cannot Claim 6th Pay Commission Scales: Supreme Court Supreme Court Slams High Court For Erroneously Exercising Review Jurisdiction On 'Mistaken Notion', Restores Employee's ACP Benefits Trademark Infringement: Defendant Can Cross-Examine Plaintiff On Use Of Brand Name Even If Written Statement Is Not On Record: Supreme Court 'Interest And Welfare Of Child Would Be Best Served': Supreme Court Invokes Parens Patriae In Contempt Plea; Revokes Own Custody Order Mere Absence From MCA Records Cannot Absolve Accused Under Section 138 NI Act If Prima Facie Role Is Shown: Punjab & Haryana High Court Incomplete Or Defective Real Estate Application Cannot Claim Deemed Registration Under Section 5(2) Of RERA Act: Orissa High Court Mere Criminal Antecedents Cannot Justify Invoking 'Organized Crime' Offence Under Section 111 BNS Without Fulfilling Statutory Ingredients: Madhya Pradesh High Court 'Testator's Character & Prior Gifts Justify Unequal Distribution': Madras High Court Upholds Holographic Will Minority Status Cannot Arrest Limitation Period For Appeal If Minor Was Represented By Natural Guardian In Original Proceedings: Madhya Pradesh High Court Mere Admission Of Property Boundaries In Family Partition Deeds Destroys Coparceners' Claim That Land Remains Joint Ancestral Property: Karnataka High Court Mesne Profits Must Reflect Open Market Letting Value Rather Than Static Contractual Rates: Delhi High Court Law Graduates Who Fail To Clear AIBE Within Two Years Cannot Practice In Any Court, Tribunal Or Revenue Authority: Allahabad High Court Bombay High Court Slams 'Growing Tendency' To Bypass GST Appeals, Says 'Natural Justice' Not A Blanket Excuse For Writ Petitions Proportionate Cost Only Can Be Awarded On Decreed Amount, Not On Total Plaint Valuation: Kerala 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