Limitation Period For Specific Performance Starts From Date Of Refusal If No Fixed Date Stipulated In Agreement: Karnataka High Court Pensionary Benefits Not ‘Pecuniary Advantage’, Cannot Be Deducted From Income For Motor Accident Compensation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Propounder Faces Heavy Burden Of Proof When Testator Is Illiterate; Registration Does Not Cure Unexplained Suspicious Circumstances: Supreme Court Mother Killing Minor Children Over Husband's Refusal To Take Her To Workplace Is Murder, Not Culpable Homicide: Andhra Pradesh High Court Specific Performance Of Registered Agreement To Sell Is No Longer Discretionary Post-2018 Amendment: Allahabad High Court Civil Court Has Jurisdiction To Determine If Tenanted Property Belongs To Joint Family Even If Tenancy Order Stands In Individual Karta's Name: Bombay High Court Notice Under Section 107 BNSS Mandatory Before Attaching Property; Right To Property Is A Constitutional Right: Calcutta High Court Post-Cognizance Arrest 'Makes No Sense' If Investigation Completed Without Arrest: Delhi High Court Grants Bail Under BNSS Criminal Courts Cannot Be Used To Settle Civil Inheritance Disputes Over Appreciated Land Values: Gujarat High Court Quashes Fraud Case Accused Must Raise Probable Defence To Rebut Statutory Presumption Under Section 139 NI Act If Signatures Are Undisputed: Himachal Pradesh High Court Passing Departmental Exam Not A Pre-requisite For Grant Of ACP/MACP Benefits: Jharkhand High Court Convenience Of Family And Accused Paramount For Jail Shifting; Trial Court Can't Reject Application Merely For Non-Residency: J&K High Court Litigants Who Attempt To Pollute The Stream Of Justice With Tainted Hands Are Not Entitled To Any Relief: Karnataka High Court Trial Court Must Implement Modified Preliminary Decree In Full: Telangana High Court Directs Partition Of Property Omitted In Final Decree Proceedings If Grievance Is Real But Lies Before Different Forum, Plaint Should Be Returned Under Order VII Rule 10 CPC, Not Rejected: Rajasthan High Court Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Due To Severity Of Economic Offence If Evidence Is Documentary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Non-Compliance With Mandatory Duty To Inform Grounds Of Arrest Under Section 47 BNSS Is Impermissible: Orissa High Court Grants Bail Land Acquisition Award Finality Under Section 12 Is A Bar To Writ Petitions Challenging 'Public Necessity': Madhya Pradesh High Court State As Eminent Domain Is Obligated To Pay Adequate Compensation, Not Minimum To Suit Its Convenience: Madras High Court Kerala High Court Grants Emergency Parole To Life Convict To Execute Sale Deed, Repay Bank Loan To Prevent Family's Eviction High Court Cannot Act As Court Of First Instance In Service Matters Amenable To CAT Jurisdiction: Delhi High Court Election Tribunal Has No Jurisdiction To Declare Caste Certificate Forged, Authority Vests Solely With Scrutiny Committee: Allahabad High Court Order IX Rule 7 CPC Requires 'Good Cause' Not 'Sufficient Cause'; Trial Court Can't Apply Higher Threshold To Pre-Decree Proceedings: Telangana High Court Victim Cannot Maintain Appeal Seeking Enhancement Of Sentence Under Section 372 CrPC; Such Power Exclusively With State: Rajasthan High Court Disability Pension: Presumption In Favour Of Personnel If Found Fit At Enrollment; Percentage Must Be Rounded Off: Punjab & Haryana HC Employee Entitled To Second Kramonnati Benefit If Promotion To Higher Post Does Not Result In Higher Pay Scale: Madhya Pradesh High Court Borrowers Can Be Granted Opportunity To Clear Loan Overdues In Installments To Prevent Coercive Action Under SARFAESI Act: Kerala 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