Supreme Court | Clubbing of FIRs from Distinct Transactions Across States Not Permissible | Restricts Consolidation to Intra-State Cases in Investor-Fraud Matter
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court Division Bench of Chief Justice B. R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran on September 26 held that nationwide consolidation of FIRs in a multi-crore investor-fraud case was inappropriate because the complaints arose from separate transactions governed by different local laws and requiring distinct witnesses and evidence. The Court stated that clubbing is permitted only when multiple FIRs stem from the same incident, and therefore allowed consolidation only within Telangana and Maharashtra. It declined the appellants’ reliance on the Amish Devgan case, noting that the earlier decision dealt with a single televised incident unlike the present dispersed acts of financial misconduct
The petitions arose from complaints lodged across several States against a financial-services firm and its management for allegedly diverting funds collected from investors, leading to widespread monetary losses. The petitioners, including individuals in the company’s management and family members of certain accused, sought consolidation of all FIRs filed across different States into a single investigation before one police station. They also sought consolidation of any future FIRs that might be registered on similar allegations.
The respondents, particularly the State of Telangana, opposed the plea, stating that although the alleged modus operandi was similar, each offence involved distinct transactions, victims, and evidence. Telangana authorities highlighted that some offences were also covered under the Telangana Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999. Other FIRs were registered in Karnataka, Maharashtra, West Bengal, Delhi, Andhra Pradesh, and Rajasthan, each under different local laws such as the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019, and provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023 (BNS), including Sections 316(2), 318(4), and related provisions.
The petitioners relied on earlier Supreme Court rulings, notably Amish Devgan v. Union of India (2021) and Radhey Shyam v. State of Haryana (2022), to argue for nationwide clubbing of FIRs. The respondents countered that these cases involved either a single incident or were decided under Article 142 with State consent, and hence were not applicable.
The dispute revolved around whether the FIRs, arising from investor complaints in separate transactions but alleging a similar pattern of misappropriation, could be treated as one occurrence for consolidated investigation and trial. Records of the various FIRs, including details of the police stations, sections invoked, and accused named, were submitted before the Court for consideration.
The Court observed, “the prayers made in the Writ Petition for clubbing of FIRs from various States and also regarding the future FIRs are overambitious and outright illegal. It stated, “the prayer regarding future FIRs is one which cannot be granted by any court of law.”4
Regarding reliance on earlier decisions, the Court recorded, “The further contention that a similar relief was granted in Radhey Shyam v. State of Haryana by order dated 12.05.2022 should be replicated here also, has been dealt with in Amandeep Singh.”
The Bench noted, “In Amish Devgan…the offence was one, of an alleged objectionable statement leading to hurting of religious sentiments telecast in a television show; which stands distinct from the instant case wherein FIRs were registered on the complaints of the investors of depositors who were alleged to have been duped by the firm diverting the funds.”
It further observed, “we cannot forget that after investigation if a charge sheet is filed, the trial will have to be proceeded with, producing witnesses, being the investors of depositors, from the various locations. In which event the clubbing of FIRs from all the States would not be practical.”
The Court recorded that “Section 242 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023 enables offences of same kind within a year to be charged together,” but clarified that it did not justify nationwide consolidation in the present context.
Finally, it noted, “The clubbing of the single FIRs filed in the State of Karnataka, West Bengal, Delhi, Andhra Pradesh and Rajasthan stand rejected.”
The Court ordered, “the FIR registered in Madhapur, Cyberabad will stand transferred to Economic Offences Wing, Cyberabad. The FIR 210 of 2025 registered in Wagle Estate, Thane City will be transferred to Ambazari, Nagpur City.”
“Considering the fact that they have spent months together in jail, they shall be released on bail on such conditions imposed by the Jurisdictional Magistrate, including that of cooperation in the investigation. Others against whom warrants are pending shall not be arrested…within the six-month period the petitioners shall appear before the Jurisdictional Courts…praying for regular bail.”
“If and when the trial commences, witnesses…shall be awarded costs to defray the expenses of travel and residence…which shall be paid by the accused herein through the Court.”
Case Title: Odela Satyam & Anr. v. The State of Telangana & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1174
Case Number: Writ Petition (Criminal) D.No.26673 of 2025
Bench: Chief Justice B. R. Gavai, Justice K. Vinod Chandran
