9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (5) TMI 1619 - SC - Indian LawsMaintainability of the petition - Seeking 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 - exercise of powers under Article 32 read with our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India - Petitioners 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 - HELD THAT - 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). 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. 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. 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. 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.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions considered by the Court were:
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Clubbing and Transfer of Multiple FIRs Across Different States to a Single Court Legal Framework and Precedents: The Court relied on settled principles that multiplicity of proceedings is generally not in the larger public interest. However, the Court also recognized that many FIRs invoked special State enactments, which have territorial applicability and jurisdictional limitations. The Court referred to precedents such as Radhey Shyam v. State of Haryana and Abhishek Singh Chauhan v. Union of India, which clarified the jurisdictional competence of Special Courts for offences under special enactments. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court held that transferring FIRs registered in multiple States to a single Court in Haryana was not maintainable, particularly since a similar prayer had been rejected earlier. The territorial nature of the special enactments invoked in several FIRs militated against transfer across States. Application of Law to Facts: Given the multiplicity of FIRs (64 FIRs across 10 States) and the invocation of local Acts, the Court concluded that transfer of all FIRs to Panchkula, Haryana, would not serve the ends of justice. Conclusion: The Court rejected the prayer for transfer of FIRs across States but entertained the alternative prayer to consolidate FIRs within each State. Issue 2: Consolidation of Multiple FIRs Within Each State Legal Framework and Precedents: The Court emphasized that consolidation of FIRs within the same State is permissible and desirable to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. The principle is that all FIRs within a State arising from the same or connected transactions should be merged with the earliest FIR registered in that State. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court directed that in each State, the FIRs be merged with the earliest FIR (designated as the principal FIR). Subsequent FIRs would be treated as statements under Section 161 CrPC, and the investigating officer would be empowered to file supplementary charge sheets consolidating all material. Key Evidence and Findings: The Court noted the status of various FIRs-some had concluded trials with convictions or acquittals, some were at the evidence or charge-sheet stage, and some had cancellation reports. The Court excluded FIRs with concluded outcomes from consolidation. Application of Law to Facts: The Court listed FIRs to be merged in each State, specifying principal FIRs and the FIRs to be clubbed with them. This included detailed tabulations for States like Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Punjab, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, and Uttarakhand. Treatment of Competing Arguments: Although States initially opposed clubbing, they did not object to consolidation within their respective jurisdictions during hearing, leading to a consensus. Conclusion: The Court allowed consolidation of FIRs within each State as per the detailed directions. Issue 3: Jurisdiction and Trial Forum Post-Consolidation Legal Framework and Precedents: The Court relied on the principle that if the principal FIR is under the general law (IPC) but subsequent FIRs involve special enactments, the trial must be conducted by the Special Court constituted under the relevant State legislation. This was supported by the precedents cited. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court clarified that offences under special enactments, even when clubbed with general IPC offences, would be tried by the Special Court under the concerned State law. Application of Law to Facts: Since several FIRs involved State-specific Acts such as the Gujarat Police Act, Haryana Protection of Interest of Depositors Act, and others, trials would proceed before Special Courts. Conclusion: The Court established that the Special Courts have jurisdiction over clubbed FIRs involving special enactments, even if the principal FIR is under the IPC. Issue 4: Procedural Directions Regarding Investigation and Trial Legal Framework: Sections 161 and 173 CrPC were central to the procedural directions. Section 161 allows statements to be recorded by police during investigation, and Section 173 mandates filing of police reports (charge sheets) after investigation. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court directed that subsequent FIRs merged into the principal FIR would be treated as statements under Section 161 CrPC. The investigating officer would collate all materials and file supplementary charge sheets under Section 173 CrPC. If charge sheets were already filed in clubbed FIRs and cognizance taken, those cases would also be transferred and merged with the principal FIR. Application of Law to Facts: This approach was to ensure a unified investigation and trial process, reducing duplication and multiplicity of proceedings. Conclusion: The Court provided clear procedural guidelines to streamline investigation and trial post-consolidation. Issue 5: Effect of Bail Granted in Principal FIR on Clubbed FIRs Legal Framework and Precedents: The Court considered the principle of bail extension and the need for fresh bail applications where offences under special enactments are involved. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court held that if bail has been granted in the principal FIR, it shall enure to the benefit of the petitioner in the clubbed FIRs as well. However, if the principal FIR involves only general law offences and the clubbed FIRs involve special enactments or additional offences, the Special Court may require fresh bail applications for those offences. Application of Law to Facts: This balanced approach protects the petitioner's rights while allowing the Special Court discretion to consider bail on merits for offences under special enactments. Conclusion: Bail granted in principal FIR extends to clubbed FIRs unless the nature of offences requires fresh bail consideration. Issue 6: Treatment of FIRs in States with Single FIRs Court's Reasoning: Since Chhattisgarh and NCT of Delhi had only one FIR each, there was no question of clubbing. These cases would proceed independently as per law. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS "Multiplicity of proceedings will not be in larger 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." "The 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 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)." "The subsequent FIRs in each State shall be treated as Statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973." "The Investigating Officer in the criminal case arising out of the principal FIR in the concerned State will be free to file supplementary charge sheets after the collation of all records concerning other FIRs in the concerned State which are clubbed." "If 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." "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." The Court ultimately allowed the writ petition to the extent of clubbing FIRs within the respective States, directing that trials proceed in the Special Courts where applicable, and providing detailed procedural directions for investigation, charge-sheet filing, and bail considerations.
|
