Multiplicity of Proceedings Will Not Serve Public Interest: Supreme Court Orders Clubbing of 64 FIRs Against Real Estate Promoter Across 10 States

“Subsequent FIRs Shall Be Treated as Section 161 CrPC Statements; Special Courts Must Try Offences Under State-Specific Investor Protection Laws” –  In a significant ruling Supreme Court of India addressed the judicial complications arising from 64 criminal cases lodged across ten States against Ravinder Singh Sidhu, Managing Director of KIM Infrastructure and Developers Ltd. (KIDL), accused of orchestrating a massive land-allotment-based investment scam.

Acting under Article 32 and invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Court ordered that all FIRs registered in each State shall be merged with the earliest FIR in that State, which shall be treated as the “principal FIR”, while “subsequent FIRs shall be treated as statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973”.

"The Correct Course Is to Merge FIRs with the Earliest One in Each State” – Court Declines Centralized Transfer, Allows State-Wise Consolidation

The petitioner had initially prayed for the transfer of all FIRs to Panchkula, Haryana, but the Court noted that such a plea was already dismissed in 2020, and thus could not be entertained again. However, taking note of the petitioner’s alternative prayer for consolidation within each State—which was not objected to by the Respondent States during hearing—the Court allowed consolidation for the purpose of investigation and prosecution.

Justice K.V. Viswanathan, writing the judgment for the Bench also comprising Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, observed: “Multiplicity of proceedings will not be in larger public interest. Further, since many States have invoked local Acts… transferring them out of the State also will not serve the ends of justice. Hence, the correct course of action would be to merge the FIRs with the earliest FIR in the State concerned.”

Widespread Allegations of Fraudulent Investment and Land Allotment Schemes

The case arises from complaints alleging that KIDL, under Sidhu’s leadership, collected crores from the public, offering either lump sum or deferred payment plans for allotment of developed land. It was later revealed through a CBI preliminary inquiry—conducted pursuant to a Madhya Pradesh High Court order in W.P. No. 3332 of 2010—that companies including KIDL had no capacity to repay investors and ran fraudulent profiteering schemes.

The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) also rejected KIDL’s attempt to register its operation as a Collective Investment Scheme (CIS), stating:

“Registration was a pre-condition for initiating/launching/sponsoring a CIS under the SEBI Act, 1992.”

The petitioner has remained in judicial custody since 11.10.2018, even as trials in some FIRs have concluded—with three convictions and two acquittals already recorded.

“Subsequent FIRs Are to Be Treated as Section 161 Statements, Not Independent Trials” – Supreme Court Simplifies Prosecution Across States

In a detailed direction, the Court ordered that the first FIR in each State would act as the principal FIR, and all other FIRs in that State must be treated as part of the same chain of events, thereby becoming statements under Section 161 CrPC. It further held: “The Investigating Officer in the criminal case arising out of the principal FIR in the concerned State will be free to file supplementary charge-sheets after the collation of all records concerning other FIRs in the concerned State which are clubbed in terms of this order.” “If Police Reports under Section 173 of CrPC stand already filed in the clubbed FIRs… the said FIRs and criminal cases would also stand transferred and merged/clubbed along with the principal FIR.”

“Special Enactments Must Prevail Where Applicable” – Court Clarifies Jurisdiction of Special Courts

While ordering clubbing, the Court made a crucial clarification regarding the applicability of special State enactments. In FIRs invoking statutes like the Haryana Protection of Depositors Act, Madhya Pradesh Depositor Protection Act, Uttarakhand Depositors Act, and the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978, the Special Courts constituted under those laws will continue to retain jurisdiction.

The Court held: “If the principal FIR is limited to offences under the general law… but the subsequent FIRs contain allegations attracting offences under the special enactment… the Special Court is entitled to insist on a fresh bail application.” “The other offences not part of the special enactments can also be tried by the Special Court under the concerned State legislation.”

This direction is rooted in the Court’s reliance on its earlier decisions in Radhey Shyam v. State of Haryana, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1935, and Abhishek Singh Chauhan v. Union of India, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1936, where it held that: “Clubbing of multiple FIRs arising from the same transaction is necessary to avoid conflicting judgments and duplicative trials.”

“Bail in Principal FIR to Extend to Clubbed FIRs—Subject to Exceptions” – Court Balances Procedural Fairness

The Court acknowledged that the petitioner had been in custody for a long period and accordingly held that: “In case the petitioner has been granted bail in connection with the principal proceeding… the bail so granted must enure to the petitioner’s favour in the other FIRs now clubbed as well.”

However, the Court cautioned that if the offences under special enactments are involved, and no bail was granted under those laws, the petitioner must seek fresh bail, which should be decided on its own merits by the Special Court.

Consolidated FIRs Per State: Court Lists Detailed Mergers

The Court listed detailed State-wise consolidation. For example:

• In Punjab, 16 FIRs were merged with FIR No. 198/2018 registered at SAS Nagar, P.S. Phase I.

• In Uttar Pradesh, 14 FIRs merged with FIR No. 28/2019, P.S. Kotwali, Basti.

• Gujarat, Haryana, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh followed a similar structure.

• For Delhi and Chhattisgarh, no consolidation was directed since only one FIR was pending in each State.

“We have passed the above order in exercise of powers under Article 32 read with our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India,” the Bench concluded.

A Judicial Template for Managing Multi-State Economic Offences

This landmark decision lays down a structured mechanism for handling multi-jurisdictional criminal cases involving common patterns of fraud. It not only reduces judicial burden but also ensures uniformity and fairness in prosecution, particularly in cases involving financial fraud, public deception, and regulatory violations under special laws.

By transforming a fragmented prosecution into a consolidated legal proceeding, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed its role in ensuring that “procedure does not defeat justice”, especially when the public interest and investor protection are at stake.

Date of Decision: 19 May 2025