Criminal Proceedings Cannot Be Used To Settle Civil Property Disputes: Calcutta High Court Quashes Trespass And Theft Case Victim’s Absence From WhatsApp Group Does Not Negate Insult To Modesty: Kerala High Court Refuses To Quash Case Over Obscene Posts Section 319 CrPC | Summoning Additional Accused Requires Evidence Stronger Than Prima Facie: Allahabad High Court Employer Cannot Plead Limitation When It Failed To Determine Gratuity: Bombay High Court On Employer’s Statutory Duty Under Section 7 Once Demand and Acceptance Are Proved, Burden Shifts to Accused: Delhi High Court Affirms Conviction of Police Officer in Bribery Case BUDS Act | Law Looks At The Substance Of The Transaction, Not Its Cosmetic Garb: Karnataka High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against Digital Gold Platform Under Seniority Tied to Appointment, Not Selection: Delhi High Court Full Bench Resolves Long-standing Conflict in BSF Recruitment Seniority Disputes Calling Family Land "Ancestral" Is Not Enough — Must Trace Four Generations Of Male Lineage To Stop Father From Selling It: Punjab & Haryana HC Cannot Challenge a Document Bearing Your Own Signature By Staying Out of the Witness Box: Punjab & Haryana HC Dismisses Injunction Suit Solar Panel Installation Does Not Amount To Industrial Use, SIPCOT Can Resume Unutilised Land: Madras High Court Article 226 Is Not A Forum To Settle Boundary Wars: Kerala High Court Refuses To Entertain Plea For Retaining Wall In Munnar Landslide Dispute State Cannot Exploit A Workman For 30 Years And Deny Him Pension: Orissa High Court Orders Notional Regularisation Of DLR Watchman Wrote "Main Chor Hoon" On It With A Marker — And A Man Died: Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail Equivalency Cannot Override Statutory Mandate of Regular Study: Kerala High Court Sets Aside KAT Order on Librarian Recruitment No Saptapadi, No Marriage: Calcutta High Court Quashes Bigamy And Cruelty Case, Rules Stamp Paper Union Is Legal Nullity Under Hindu Marriage Act Revenue Authority Cannot Vest Land In State Under Section 79A, Suo Motu Proceedings After 11 Years Fatal: Gujarat High Court Campaigning During 48-Hour Silent Period Is Not 'Undue Influence' Under Section 123(2), Election Petition Must Plead How Result Was Materially Affected: Bombay High Court DVDs Carrying Encoded Data Infringe Patent Even If Stampers Are Outsourced: Delhi High Court in Philips’ DVD-ROM Patent Dispute Departmental Exoneration Does Not Bar Criminal Trial If Key Evidence Not Considered: Karnataka HC Refuses To Quash PSI’s Corruption Case Can't Claim Irrevocable License Under Section 60 Easements Act Without Pleading It First: Punjab & Haryana High Court Gurmeet Ram Rahim Acquitted in Journalist Murder Case, But Three Co-Accused Convicted: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Life Imprisonment for Actual Shooters FSL Ballistic Evidence Cannot Be Discredited Years After Trial Merely Because Bullets Bear Different Seals: Punjab & Haryana High Court

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