[2025] 5 S.C.R. 2648 : 2025 INSC 727 Ravinder Singh Sidhu v. The State of Punjab & Ors. (Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 394 of 2024) 19 May 2025
[B.R. Gavai, CJI and K.V. Viswanathan,* J.] Issue for Consideration Whether multiple FIRs registered across different States can be clubbed and consolidated in one jurisdiction, or at least within one district per State, under the Court’s power u/Arts.32 and 142 of the Constitution. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Arts.32, 142 – Clubbing and consolidation of FIRs – Multiplicity of proceedings – Petition u/Art.32 for clubbing and transfer of FIRs in different States – Petitioner facing 64 FIRs in 10 States – Similar allegations arising out of a common scheme – Writ petition seeking clubbing FIRs within the respective States: Held: Multiplicity of proceedings not in public interest – Since many States have invoked local Acts, particularly the Act dealing with the Protection of Interest of Depositors, transferring them out of the State also will not serve the ends of justice – Correct course of action would be to merge the FIRs with the earliest FIR in the State concerned – If the first FIR in the respective States registered in respect of offence under the general law and not the special enactment, but if the subsequent FIRs now clubbed are registered in connection with the special law or registered also in connection with the special law, the same after clubbing must be tried under the special law by the Special Courts – While the first FIR will be treated as the First Information Report the subsequent FIRs in each State shall be treated as statements u/s.161 CrPC – Investigating Officer in the criminal case arising out of the principal FIR in the concerned State will be free to file supplementary chargesheets after the collation of all records concerning other FIRs in the concerned State which are clubbed in terms of this order – If Police Report u/s.173 CrPC stands already filed in the clubbed FIRs and the concerned Courts have taken cognizance thereof, said FIRs and * Author
Ravinder Singh Sidhu v. The State of Punjab & Ors. criminal cases would also stand transferred and merged/clubbed along with the principal FIR to be proceeded with in accordance with law – Supplementary charge-sheets can be filed – Bail in principal FIR to apply to others unless distinct charges require fresh consideration – Only one FIR each in Chhattisgarh and Delhi, hence, not subject to clubbing – Order in exercise of powers u/Art.32 read with Art.142 passed. [Paras 10, 19-22] Case Law Cited Radhey Shyam v. State of Haryana, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1935; Abhishek Singh Chauhan v. Union of India, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1936 – relied on. List of Acts Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978; Gujarat Police Act, 1951; Haryana Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishment Act, 2013; Madhya Pradesh Nikshepakon Ke Hiton Ka Sanrakshan Adhiniyam, 2000; Uttarakhand Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 2005. List of Keywords Clubbed FIRs; Multiplicity of proceedings; Jurisdictional consolidation; Public interest; Criminal trial; Bail; Merging of FIRs; Principal FIR; General law; Special law; Multiple FIRs. Case Arising From CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 394 of 2024 Under Article 32 of The Constitution of India Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Petitioner: Shyam Mehta, Sr. Adv., Mohit Paul, Ms. Rangoli Seth, Varad Kilor, Rohit. Advs. for the Respondents: Amit Sharma, Ms. Manisha Aggarwal, A.A.Gs., Siddhant Sharma, Yashraj Singh Bundela, Ms. Saloni, Arpit Garg, Dhruv Sharma, Akshay Amritanshu, Ms. Drishti Rawal, Ms. Pragya Upadhyay, Ms.
Drishti Saraf, Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, Ms. Abhipsa Mohanty, Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Bhuvan Kapoor, Anuj Udupa, Sharath Nambiar, Ms. Alabhaya Dhamija, Sudarshan Singh Rawat, Ms. Saakshi Singh Rawat, Ajay Kumar Bahuguna, Saurabh Rajpal, Vinay Kumar Singh, Arpit Bamal, Ashzad Mubarak, Ms. Nidhi Jaswal, Pradeep Misra, Daleep Dhyani, Suraj Singh. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment K.V. Viswanathan, J.
The present Writ Petition has been filed seeking to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction for clubbing and transferring the multiple First Information Reports (FIRs) registered against the petitioner in different States to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Panchkula, Haryana. Though this is the prayer made in the petition, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner states that he would only press for consolidation of the multiple FIRs in each of the States to one district within the respective States. It should also be noticed that as far as the original prayer made in the petition is concerned, on facts, it was clearly not maintainable since a similar prayer made by the petitioner in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 206 of 2020 filed in this Court on 20.07.2020 was rejected on 17.08.2020. Considering the fact that the petitioner is now seeking the alternative prayer and the respective States during the hearing have not objected to the same, we have decided to entertain the petition in the special facts and circumstances of the case.
In all, there are 64 FIRs registered in 10 States. The States concerned which are parties to the writ petition are Punjab (23 FIRs), Madhya Pradesh (2 FIRs), Haryana (6 FIRs), Gujarat (4 FIRs), Chhattisgarh (1 FIR), NCT of Delhi (1 FIR), Uttarakhand (5 FIRs), Rajasthan (5 FIRs), Uttar Pradesh (15 FIRs) and Himachal Pradesh (2 FIRs).
It should also be mentioned that, out of the above, already trial is concluded in some and in three cases convictions have been recorded. In two cases acquittals have been recorded, in two cases there have been cancellation reports, 15 cases are at the evidence stage and 21 cases are at the stage where charge-sheets have been filed. We are not concerned with the cases where convictions or acquittals have been recorded or in some cases where cancellation reports are filed.
The different FIRs are primarily for offences under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120B, 34, 263, 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). Some of the Sections referred to herein have been invoked in a few FIRs and in some all the Sections have been invoked. Along with this in some FIRs the local Acts of the State like the Gujarat Police Act, 1951, the Haryana Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishment Act, 2013, the Prize Chits And Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978, the Madhya Pradesh Nikshepakon Ke Hiton Ka Sanrakshan Adhiniyam, 2000 and the Uttarakhand Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 2005 have been invoked depending upon the State concerned.
The petitioner herein Ravinder Singh Sidhu has been in custody since 11.10.2018. He was the Managing Director of KIM Infrastructure and Developers Limited (for short ‘KIDL’). The petitioner along with other directors is alleged to have floated two schemes for allotment of developed land where customers were lured to be part of a lumpsum payment plan or a deferred payment plan.
When the matters stood thus, Writ Petition No. 3332 of 2010 was filed before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at its Gwalior Bench for inquiry against financial companies including ‘KIDL’, on the ground that the companies were seeking deposits from the public with promise of repayment with higher returns ranging from 15 to 20 per cent. The High Court ordered an inquiry by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The CBI conducted a preliminary investigation and submitted a report concluding that many of the named companies indulged in profiteering schemes without even having the capacity to repay along with the promised rate of return.
On 13.07.2012, the Writ Petition was disposed of by the High Court with a direction to the concerned authorities to take appropriate action in accordance with law. Pursuant thereto, the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) initiated inquiry against ‘KIDL’. KIDL’s attempt to get the scheme registered as a Collective Investment Scheme (CIS) was rejected on the ground that possessing a registration was a pre-condition for initiating/launching/sponsoring (CIS) under the SEBI Act, 1992. Certain proceedings were taken by SEBI with which we are not directly concerned here.
In the meantime, the first FIR came to be registered against KIDL and its directors by investors as well as by agents appointed by KIDL for mobilizing the investment money. As stated earlier, multiple FIRs came to be registered alleging commission of diverse offences due to default in honoring the commitments and due to failure of KIDL and the petitioner to repay the amounts. It is in this background that the present Writ Petition came to be filed.
Notices were issued in the Writ Petition and the States of Uttarakhand, Punjab, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Gujarat and Uttar Pradesh have filed counter affidavits. Though in the counter affidavits, the States have opposed the clubbing, at the hearing there was a broad consensus about consolidating the cases in the respective States.
10. Heard learned Senior Counsel/Counsel for the parties. The law in this issue is now fairly well settled. It has been held by this Court that multiplicity of proceedings will not be in larger public interest. Further, since many States have invoked local Acts, particularly the Act dealing with the Protection of Interest of Depositors, transferring them out of the State also will not serve the ends of justice. Hence, the correct course of action would be to merge the FIRs with the earliest FIR in the State concerned. It is clarified that if the first FIR in the respective States of Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Punjab, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand is registered in respect of offence under the general law and not the special enactment, but if the subsequent FIRs now clubbed are registered in connection with the special law or registered also in connection with the special law, the same after clubbing must be tried under the special law by the Special Court(s). [See Radhey Shyam v. State of Haryana and Ors., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1935 and Abhishek Singh Chauhan v. Union of India and Ors., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1936].
11. We propose to follow the said course of action. In view of the above in the State of Gujarat, the following 3 FIRs will now be merged with FIR No. I-79/2018 dated 27.09.2018 registered at Bhavnagar Gangajaliya.
Sr. No.
P.S. Vadaj
Ahmedabad City
P.S. Vadaj
Ahmedabad City
Bhavnagar Gangajaliya
12. In the State of Haryana, the following 5 FIRs will now be merged with FIR No. 24/2018 dated 16.01.2018 registered at Ambala P.S. Ambala Cant. Sr. No.
Bhiwani Civil Lines
Bhiwani
Raipur Rani
Panchkula
Hisar City
Hisar
Sirsa City
Sirsa
503/2019 COMI No. 110/2020)
NA
Narnaul
Narnaul
13. In the State of Himachal Pradesh, the following FIR will now be merged with FIR No. 13/2019 registered at Hamirpur, P.S. Sujanpur Tira. Sr. No.
Jawali
Kangra
14. In the State of Madhya Pradesh, the following FIR will now be merged with FIR No. 496/2018 dated 05.12.2018 registered at Jabalpur P.S. Lordganj.
Sr. No.
Kotwali Anuppur
Anuppur
15. In the State of Punjab, the following 16 FIRs will now be merged with FIR No. 198/2018 dated 23.10.2018 registered at SAS Nagar, P.S. Phase I. Sr. No.
City Gurdaspur
Gurdaspur
Anaj Mandi
Patiala
Talwara
Talwara
City Batala
Batala (Gurdaspur)
City Gurdaspur
Gurdaspur P.S.
City Tarn Taran
Tarn Taran
N.R.I.
Amritsar
Kotwali
Bathinda
16. In the State of Rajasthan, the following 3 FIRs will now be merged with FIR No. 878/2018 dated 20.11.2018 registered at Karauli P.S. Hindon. Sr. FIR No. No.
Tibbi
Hanumangarh
Bhupalpura
Udaipur
Vidhayakpuri
Jaipur City (South)
17. In the State of Uttar Pradesh, the following 14 FIRs will now be merged with FIR No. 28/2019 dated 13.01.2019 registered at Basti P.S. Kotwali. Sr. FIR No. No.
09.02.2019 Hari Parvat
303/2019 25.06.2019 Aonla
Bareilly
617/2020 25.12.2020 Nawabad
Jhansi
15.03.2019 Harbans Mohal
Harbans Mohal
14.05.2019 Harbans Mohal
Sungarhi
Pilibhit
Sungarhi
Pilibhit
Kashi (Commissionerate Varanasi)
189/2019 29.05.2019 Bhadohi
Bhadohi
406/2019 19.05.2019 Cantt
Gorakhpur
Varanasi
Varanasi
Faridpur
Bareilly
Place Agra
18. In the State of Uttarakhand, the following 4 FIRs will now be merged with FIR No. 107/2018 dated 30.10.2018 registered at Pithoragarh P.S. Kotwali Pithoragarh. Sr. No.
Mukhani
Nainital
Lohaghat
Champawat
Jaspur
Udham Singh Nagar
Mukhani Nainital
19. The writ petition stands allowed in the above terms. We further direct while the first FIR will be treated as the First Information Report (hereinafter for convenience called the ‘principal FIR’), the subsequent FIRs in each State shall be treated as Statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). The Investigating Officer in the criminal case arising out of the principal FIR in the concerned State will be free to file supplementary chargesheets after the collation of all records concerning other FIRs in the concerned State which are clubbed in terms of this order. We further direct that if Police Report under Section 173 of CrPC stands already filed in the clubbed FIRs and the concerned Courts have taken cognizance thereof, the said FIRs and criminal cases would also stand transferred and merged/clubbed along with the principal FIR to be proceeded with in accordance with law.
20. The investigating officer in the principal proceedings will be free to file supplementary charge-sheet on the basis of the material collated during investigation of other FIRs. We also make it clear that the other offences not part of the special enactments can also be tried by the Special Court under the concerned State legislation. We also further direct that in case the petitioner has been granted bail in connection with the principal proceeding/criminal case to which the other cases have been clubbed, the bail so granted must enure to the petitioner’s favour in the other FIRs now clubbed as well. We further clarify that if the principal FIR is limited to offence under the general law/Penal Code but the subsequent FIRs contain allegations attracting offences under the special enactment or certain other IPC offences and if the bail granted is only for some offences under the general law, the Special Court is entitled to insist for a fresh bail application to be filed by the petitioner in relation to those offences including under the Special Act. The said bail application(s) shall be decided on its own merits in accordance with law.
21. We make it clear that our direction is confined to the offences mentioned in the present order, namely, the offences under the IPC and the concerned State enactment mentioned herein.
22. As far as the State of Chhattisgarh and NCT of Delhi are concerned, since there is only one case each, the said case will proceed in those States in accordance with law and the question of clubbing does not arise. We have passed the above order in exercise of powers under Article 32 read with our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. Result of the case: Writ Petition allowed.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Aishani Narain, Hony. Associate Editor (Verified by: Nidhi Jain, Editor)