Supreme Court Refuses To Club Multiple FIRs In Cyber Fraud Case, Says Similar Modus Operandi Does Not Constitute 'Same Transaction'

"Though the alleged modus operandi appears to be similar, the victims, the amounts involved, the transactions complained of and the consequences suffered are distinct." Supreme Court of India, in a significant ruling dated July 24, 2026, held that multiple First Information Reports registered across different states cannot be clubbed together merely because the perpetrators employed a similar modus operandi.

A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih observed that where FIRs are lodged by distinct complainants regarding separate incidents with no live connectivity, they constitute distinct offences. The Court declined to consolidate cyber fraud cases spanning Maharashtra, Karnataka, and Odisha, emphasising that doing so at a nascent stage would impede a fair and effective forensic investigation.

The petitioner approached the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution, seeking to quash or alternatively club multiple FIRs registered against him in three different states under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Information Technology Act. The allegations pertained to cyber frauds where victims were falsely informed by individuals posing as police officials about money laundering activities, inducing them to transfer funds. A portion of these funds was allegedly traced to a bank account maintained by the petitioner's proprietary concern. The petitioner contended that he was abroad on a merchant ship and his account had been misused by acquaintances to whom he had lent it.

The primary question before the court was whether a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution is maintainable for seeking the quashing of FIRs when alternative statutory remedies exist. The court was also called upon to determine whether multiple FIRs arising from similar cyber fraud allegations but involving different victims and separate transactions could be clubbed and investigated by a single agency as part of the 'same transaction'.

No Exceptional Grounds To Bypass High Court

Addressing the prayer for quashing the FIRs, the Supreme Court reiterated that while its power under Article 32 is broad enough to quash criminal proceedings, such an extraordinary remedy must be exercised sparingly. The bench noted that as a matter of orderly procedure and judicial discipline, an aggrieved party is expected to first approach the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court observed that a direct petition to the Supreme Court is maintainable only in glaring cases of deprivation of liberty or fundamental rights.

"The petitioner has failed to establish infringement of any fundamental right warranting the exercise of this Court's jurisdiction under Article 32."

The 'Test Of Sameness' For Clubbing FIRs

Turning to the alternative prayer for clubbing the FIRs, the Court examined the established jurisprudence on the registration of multiple criminal cases. Citing precedents like T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala and State of Rajasthan v. Surendra Singh Rathore, the bench explained that successive FIRs cannot be filed for the exact same incident or occurrence. However, the Court clarified that if a subsequent FIR relates to a distinct offence, presents a different version of facts, or involves a separate transaction, its registration is entirely permissible and cannot be faulted in law.

Triple Test For The 'Same Transaction'

The bench extensively relied on the triple test laid down in State (NCT of Delhi) v. Khimji Bhai Jadeja, which requires courts to look for unity of purpose and design, proximity of time and place, and continuity of action to determine if acts form part of the same transaction. Applying this framework, the Court found that each of the subject FIRs in the present case was lodged by a different complainant who was allegedly induced to part with money on different occasions. The bench emphasised that there was no live link or connectivity of transactions among the different sets of persons involved.

"The mere fact that a part of the defrauded amounts is alleged to have been transferred in the bank account of petitioner's proprietary concern does not, by itself, establish that all the incidents form part of the same transaction."

"If, however, it is concluded that there are several transactions and distinct offences in relation to different victims, there have to be separate trials for each offence..."

Composite Investigation May Impede Justice

The Court also addressed the practical implications of clubbing investigations in complex cyber crimes. The bench was mindful that the investigation was still in its nascent stage, noting that modern cyber frauds involve fictitious identities, digital networks operating across jurisdictions, and multiple bank accounts. The Court reasoned that directing a composite investigation at this stage might impede a fair probe, as investigating agencies across the respective states still needed to conduct detailed forensic examinations of electronic evidence and trace intricate money trails.

Hardship To Victims Outweighs Accused's Difficulties

Rejecting the petitioner's plea that facing proceedings in different states would be difficult due to his cardiac ailments and diabetic condition, the Court held that personal hardship cannot justify the clubbing of distinct offences. The bench thoughtfully weighed this against the struggles of the victims, observing that clubbing the FIRs could force the defrauded complainants to run from pillar to post to pursue their criminal complaints. The Court stressed that victims of cyber crimes often hail from rural areas and are allured by criminals exploiting their poverty, making it imperative that local police stations retain jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition, refusing to either quash or club the multiple FIRs registered against the petitioner across the three states. The Court expressly preserved the liberty of the petitioner to approach the appropriate jurisdictional forums to seek relief under the CrPC or the Constitution, leaving all contentions open for consideration on their own merits in accordance with the law.

Date of Decision: 24 July 2026