In Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 341 of 2022 -SC- Supreme Court rejects clubbing of multiple FIRs registered in different states against same individual, upholding Special Courts' jurisdiction
Justice B.V. Nagarathna & Justice Ujjal Bhuyan [06-11-2023]

Read Order: Amandeep Singh Saran V. The State of Delhi & Ors

Chahat Varma

New Delhi, November 30, 2023: The Supreme Court has declined to club multiple FIRs registered against an individual in various states, upholding the jurisdiction of specialized courts in different states to adjudicate offenses under their respective enactments.

In the case at hand, the petitioner had filed the present writ petition, seeking a writ of mandamus to prevent further FIRs on the same cause of action, a direction against taking cognizance by any court/authority on such complaints, and a writ for the transfer/clubbing of 30 FIRs from various states to an appropriate Investigating Agency/Court in Delhi.

The petitioner's counsel referred to the order in Radhey Shyam Vs. State of Haryana and Ors. [LQ/SC/2022/2130], where relief was granted to a petitioner facing multiple FIRs in various states. The court in Radhey Shyam had clubbed together 48 FIRs filed against the petitioner, and relief was provided to avoid multiplicity of proceedings in the interest of justice. The petitioner in the present case sought a similar extension of relief.

The division bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan noted that the petitioner had sought a writ of mandamus, requesting a directive that no further FIRs would be registered against him by an investigating agency on the same cause of action. However, the bench opined that such a prayer cannot be granted by any court of law.

The bench also emphasized that a court cannot grant a direction preventing any court or authority from taking cognizance against the petitioner in cases where a complaint is based on the same cause of action.

Further, the bench clarified that the order passed in the case of Radhey Shyam, which dealt with the clubbing of FIRs, cannot be applied or replicated in the present case. This distinction was based on two factors: firstly, the said order was made by the exercise of power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, and secondly, it was made by consent of the States involved.

The bench observed that in the present case, the petitioner faced charges not only under the Indian Penal Code but also under various State enactments designed to safeguard investors. Each State had established special courts with jurisdiction to adjudicate offenses under their respective enactments. Therefore, the bench noted that consolidating the FIRs would infringe upon the jurisdiction of these specialized courts in different States, conferring exclusive jurisdiction on a single court to handle offenses arising under diverse State enactments.

As a result, the bench declined to exercise the jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution. However, the petitioner was granted the liberty to approach each jurisdictional High Court to seek clubbing of the FIRs pending against the petitioner within that particular state and also seek any other interim or final remedies as were available in law to the petitioner.

While disposing of the petition, the Court recognized the existence of multiple FIRs against the petitioner across various states. Given the petitioner's present confinement in a Chhattisgarh jail, the Court granted the petitioner the freedom to attend any trial initiated in other states through video conferencing, contingent upon the respective state's authorization.Top of Form