Writ Jurisdiction Not Appropriate For Adjudicating Complex Title Disputes; Mutation Entries Do Not Confer Ownership: Madhya Pradesh High Court Joint Account Holder Not Liable Under Section 138 NI Act If Not A Signatory To Dishonoured Cheque: Allahabad High Court Private Individuals Accepting Money Can Be Prosecuted Under MPID Act; Nomenclature As 'Loan' Irrelevant: Supreme Court Nomenclature Of Transaction As 'Loan' Irrelevant; If Ingredients Met, It Is A 'Deposit' Under MPID Act: Supreme Court Pleadings Must State Material Facts, Not Evidence; Deficiency In Pleading Cannot Be Raised For First Time In Appeal: Supreme Court Denial Of Remission Cannot Rest Solely On Heinousness Of Crime; Justice Doesn't Permit Permanent Incarceration In Shadow Of Worst Act: Supreme Court Second Application For Rejection Of Plaint Barred By Res Judicata If Earlier Order Attained Finality: Supreme Court Section 6(5) Hindu Succession Act Is A Saving Clause, Not A Jurisdictional Bar To Partition Suits: Supreme Court Sale Of Natural Gas Via Common Carrier Pipelines Is An Inter-State Sale; UP Has No Jurisdiction To Levy VAT: Supreme Court Mediclaim Reimbursement Not Deductible From Motor Accident Compensation; Tortfeasor Can’t Benefit From Claimant’s Prudence: Supreme Court Rules Of Procedure Are Handmaid Of Justice, Not Mistress; Striking Off Defence Under Order XV Rule 5 CPC Is Not Mechanical: Supreme Court Power To Strike Off Tenant's Defense Under Order XV Rule 5 CPC Is Discretionary, Not To Be Exercised Mechanically: Supreme Court Areas Urbanised Before 1959 Don't Require Separate Notification To Fall Under Delhi Rent Control Act: Delhi High Court Police Cannot Freeze Bank Accounts To Perform Compensatory Justice; Direct Nexus With Offence Essential: Bombay High Court FSL Probe Before Electronic Evidence Meets Section 65B Admissibility Standards: Gujarat High Court Court Shouldn't Adjudicate Rights At Stage Of Granting Leave Under Section 92 CPC, Only Prima Facie Case Required: Allahabad High Court Right To Seek Bail Based On Non-Furnishing Of 'Grounds Of Arrest' Applies Only Prospectively From November 6, 2025: Madras High Court Prior Exposure To Accused Before TIP Renders Identification Meaningless: Delhi High Court Acquits Four In Uphaar Cinema Murder Case No Particular Format Prescribed For 'Proposed Resolution' In No-Confidence Motion; Intention Of Members To Be Gathered From Document As A Whole: Orissa High Court Trial Court Cannot Grant Temporary Injunction Without Adverting To Allegations Of Fraud And Collusion: Calcutta High Court "Ganja" Definition Under NDPS Act Excludes Roots & Stems: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail As Seized Weight Included Whole Plants Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Doesn't Displace Section 37 NDPS Mandate In Commercial Quantity Cases: Orissa 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