Wife Not Entitled to Maintenance When Financially Secure and Dishonest: Punjab & Haryana High Court Boycott of Courts Violates Litigants’ Right to Speedy Justice: Rajasthan High Court Slams Lawyers' Strike Over Working Saturdays Order VI Rule 17 CPC | Proviso Cannot Defeat the Main Provision Which Allows Amendment ‘At Any Stage of Proceedings’: Karnataka High Court Knife Used To Enlarge Child’s Vagina Before Rape: Madhya Pradesh High Court Affirms Death Sentence In ‘Rarest Of Rare’ Case 47 BNSS | Mere Mention of Offence and Sections Is Not Disclosure of Grounds of Arrest: Allahabad High Court Quashes Arrest for Failure to Furnish Written Grounds Quasi-Judicial Officers Aren’t Criminals For Passing Orders: Patna High Court Quashes FIR Against Executive Officer In Mutation Dispute Sections 215 & 379 BNSS | Police Cannot Register FIR Without Judicial Satisfaction Where Alleged Offence Relates to Court Proceedings: Madhya Pradesh High Court Magistrate Empowered To Try Drug Offence Under Section 27(d) Despite It Falling Under Chapter IV: J&K High Court Information Commission Has No Power To Impose Blanket Ban On RTI Applications: Orissa High Court Strikes Down Restriction On Filing Future RTIs Anticipatory Bail Is Not a Shield for Crimes That Threaten Communal Harmony: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Bail Plea in Beef Possession Case Drug And Cosmetic Act | Sample Testing Must Be Completed Within 60 Days Under Rule 45 – Delay Vitiates Entire Prosecution: Bombay High Court 156(3) CrPC | Handwriting Expert's Report May Not Be Final – But It’s Sufficient to Initiate Investigation: Delhi High Court 217 CrPC | Alteration of Charges Is Not a Mere Formality: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Dowry Death Conviction Maintenance Is Not a Charity, It's an Implied Right: Chhattisgarh High Court Cancels Gift Deed for Denial of Care to Elderly Donors Minor Inconsistencies Can't Overturn Disability Claims: Bombay High Court imposes ₹2 lakh costs on HDFC Justice Must Not Be a Casualty of Clerical Oversight: AP High Court Last Seen Is Not Last Word – Circumstantial Evidence Must Be Complete and Compelling: Allahabad High Court Nomination Has Sanctity—Succession Certificate Not Mandatory When Valid Nominee Exists: Supreme Court in GPF Dispute

Supreme Court Denies Clubbing of FIRs in Amandeep Singh Saran Case: “Multiplicity of Proceedings Not in Public Interest

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling , the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan, dismissed the plea of Amandeep Singh Saran, who sought the clubbing of 30 FIRs filed against him in various states. The bench observed that “multiplicity of proceedings will not be in the larger public interest,” setting a precedent in the judicial approach towards handling multiple FIRs across states.

The writ petition, filed under Criminal Original Jurisdiction (Writ Petition (Criminal) No.341 of 2022), invoked Article 32 of the Constitution of India. Mr. Saran’s petition included a request for a writ of mandamus to prevent the registration of new FIRs and taking cognizance of complaints based on similar causes of action.

In their judgment, the bench emphasized the impracticality and legal limitations of granting such a request. The Court noted, “Such a prayer cannot be granted by any court of law.” This decision aligns with the legal understanding that courts cannot impede the process of law enforcement and subsequent judicial processes based on presumptive repetition of cause.

While drawing a distinction from the Radhey Shyam case, where similar relief was granted, the Court highlighted that the relief in Radhey Shyam was granted under unique circumstances and by the consent of the States under Article 142 of the Constitution. The Court clarified that this precedent could not be universally applied, especially in cases involving state-specific enactments and special courts.

The petitioner was, however, granted the liberty to approach High Courts for the clubbing of FIRs within each state. Furthermore, considering Mr. Saran’s current incarceration in Chhattisgarh, the Court allowed him the liberty to appear in trials via video conferencing.

This ruling is pivotal in defining the boundaries of judicial intervention in matters of criminal prosecution involving multiple FIRs across different jurisdictions. The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the need for a balanced approach that upholds the principles of justice while ensuring the practicality and efficiency of legal proceedings.

Date of Decision: 6th November 2023

AMANDEEP SINGH SARAN  VS THE STATE OF DELHI & ORS.

Latest Legal News