Wife Exaggerating Husband's Income In Maintenance Affidavit Is Not Perjury: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Husband's Section 340 Application Candidate Cannot Be Faulted For Missing Disclaimers In Form-26 Supplied By Returning Officer: Bombay High Court Dismissal Without Departmental Enquiry Violates Natural Justice When Criminal Conviction Is Set Aside: Chhattisgarh High Court Orders Reinstatement Cipla MD Gets Relief: Himachal Pradesh HC Quashes Drug Prosecution For Absence of Specific Averment on Day-to-Day Role Mandatory Notice Under Section 106(3) Railways Act Applies To 'Overcharges', Not 'Illegal Charges': Gauhati High Court Insurer Can't Escape Paying Accident Victims Even With Invalid Licence Defence — Avoidance Clause In Policy Seals Liability: Gujarat High Court Fraud Vitiates All Solemn Acts — Once A Claim Is Founded On Fraud, The Entire Edifice Of The Claim Collapses And No Relief Can Be Granted: Supreme Court Like Cases Must Be Decided Alike": Orissa High Court Directs State To Pay Service Benefits To Deceased Employee's Heirs Claiming Parity Ancient Jain Idol Cannot Remain In Police Custody Under Treasure Trove Act: Allahabad High Court Orders Transfer To Museum Income Tax | Receivables For Warranty Reimbursements Constitute An 'Asset' Under Section 153A For Reopening Assessment: Delhi High Court Married Persons Cannot Claim Police Protection For Live-In Relationships Without First Obtaining Divorce: Allahabad High Court Breach Of Private Compromise Cannot Ipso Facto Trigger Cancellation Of Probation Granted On Legally Sustainable Grounds: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Interference Under Article 226 In Eviction Proceedings When Land Compensation Is Deposited In Competent Court: Kerala High Court "Immediately Preceding Three Years" For Land Compensation Must Be Calculated From Date Of Section 11 Notification, Not Calendar Year: Jharkhand High Court Contributory Negligence Cannot Be Attributed To Minor Children; State Strictly Liable For Unsecured Hazardous Reservoirs: J&K High Court Party Seeking Transfer Can't Hide Pending Transfer Petition From High Court: Karnataka HC Quashes Transfer Order Mother Can Represent Muslim Minor As 'Next Friend' In Civil Suit As CPC Provisions Are Secular And Not Tied To Personal Law: Calcutta High Court First Appellate Court Must Frame Points For Determination Under Order XLI Rule 31 CPC, Cannot Remand Cryptically: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mere Recovery Of Stolen Property Cannot Be Sole Basis For Murder Conviction If Chain Of Circumstances Is Broken: Bombay High Court MP Constable's Shell Company, Rs.6.44 Crore Properties, Ghost Cooperative Society: HC Rejects PMLA Bail of Director Who Had 'No Financial Capability' To Buy What He Bought

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