Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Alok Aradhe allowed the State’s appeal and set aside the Delhi High Court’s 2019 view that separate FIRs are mandatory for each investor in a large-scale cheating case. The Court held that where the allegations disclose a single criminal conspiracy leading to cheating of numerous investors, the police may register one FIR on a representative complaint and treat the remaining complaints as statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The dispute arose from allegations of an inducement scheme in which multiple persons were allegedly persuaded to invest money and were cheated in large numbers, with the investigation identifying 1,852 affected investors and substantial losses.

The appeal was filed by the State (NCT of Delhi) challenging a judgment of the Delhi High Court which answered a criminal reference arising out of a large-scale cheating investigation. The reference originated from proceedings before an Additional Sessions Judge in connection with allegations of inducement and cheating of a large number of investors pursuant to an alleged criminal conspiracy. The prosecution case was that a false representation was made to investors promising extraordinary returns, pursuant to which substantial sums of money were collected from numerous individuals.

Also Read: Reserved Category Candidate Availing Prelims Relaxation Cannot Claim Unreserved IFS Vacancy On Final Rank: Supreme Court

During investigation, the police registered a single FIR and treated complaints received from other affected investors as statements recorded during investigation. The High Court, while answering the reference, held that each deposit constituted a separate transaction requiring a separate FIR and separate final reports. Aggrieved by this view, the State approached the Supreme Court contending that the alleged acts formed part of a single transaction arising from one conspiracy, and that registration of a single FIR was legally permissible. The Court examined the statutory framework under the Code of Criminal Procedure and the judicial precedents governing consolidation of FIRs, charges, and trials in cases involving multiple acts arising out of an alleged conspiracy.

The Court examined the concept of “same transaction” in the context of criminal law and noted that it is not statutorily defined. It recorded that “whether transactions can be regarded as the same transaction would necessarily depend upon the particular facts of each case.”

Referring to settled principles, the Court observed that “where there is proximity of time or place or unity of purpose and design or continuity of action in respect of a series of acts, it may be possible to infer that they form part of the same transaction.” It clarified that “it is not necessary that every one of these elements should co-exist for transactions to be regarded as the same transaction.”

The Bench further stated that “a transaction may consist of an isolated act or a series of connected acts,” and that “such series of acts must, of necessity, be connected with one another and if some of them stand out independently, they would not form part of the same transaction.”

On the issue of multiple FIRs, the Court recorded that “there can be no second FIR in relation to the same cognizable offence,” and that subsequent information relating to the same occurrence would fall within the scope of statements recorded during investigation.

The Court found that the reference itself was premature, observing that “the stage had not arisen for the learned Additional Sessions Judge to have entertained any doubt so as to raise the questions of law.” It further noted that the investigation had culminated in allegations of criminal conspiracy and held that “as a conspiracy is alleged, leading to multiple acts of cheating against different individuals, the course adopted by the police in registering one FIR was the correct course of action to have been adopted at that stage.”

The Court clarified that “the inference to be drawn from the chargesheets is left to the Magistrate concerned,” who would determine whether the acts formed part of the same transaction at the stage of framing of charges.

Also Read: Ad-Hoc Promotion Beyond 15% Quota Confers No Seniority Right Or Service Benefits: Himachal Pradesh High Court

The Court directed that “the answers on questions (a) and (b) given by the Division Bench of the High Court are set aside. The judgment dated 08.07.2019 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Criminal Reference No. 1 of 2014 is set aside to that extent.”

The appeal is allowed in the aforestated terms.” It also recorded appreciation for the assistance rendered by the amicus curiae.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Appellant (State): Learned Additional Solicitor General of India
Amicus Curiae: Mr. R. Basant, Senior Advocate

Case Title: The State (NCT of Delhi) v. Khimji Bhai Jadeja
Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 25
Case Number: Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 9198 of 2019
Bench: Justice Sanjay Kumar, Justice Alok Aradhe