The Supreme Court has reserved liberty for a petitioner who had forty FIRs registered against him in different States to approach jurisdictional High Courts for case-specific considerations.
The petitioner had sought relief through a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution to prevent registration of further FIRs, restraining authorities from taking cognizance, and consolidating a substantial number of FIRs filed across various states. In responding to the petitioner's plea, the Court explored the potential remedies available under Articles 142 and 226 of the Constitution, emphasizing the need for a case-specific approach in cases where multiple FIRs were registered across States.
The respondents relied on the judgment in the case of Balasaheb Keshawrao Bhapkar vs. State of Maharashtra (writ petition (Crl) 417/2022) which held that preventing the registration of FIRs and clubbing existing FIRs is against criminal justice. The respondents contend that the petitioner should be directed to approach the jurisdictional High Courts to seek the clubbing of FIRs pending within each respective state.
The respondents also argued that the orders passed under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, as seen in the case of Radhey Shyam vs. State of Haryana (W.P. (Crl) No.75/2020), cannot serve as a precedent in any subsequent case. They emphasised that the exercise of power under Article 142 is specific to the facts and circumstances of each particular case, and its application in one instance does not automatically establish a precedent for future cases.
The Court clarified the precedent set by the Radhey Shyam Case where FIRs from different states were clubbed together. The Radhey Shyam judgment, relying on Article 142, aimed to prevent a multiplicity of proceedings and serve the public interest. However, the Court agreed with the respondents and stated that such an approach requires limited applicability and the consent of the states involved, and was thus, not applicable to the situation of this case.
Despite the petitioner's reliance on the expansive powers granted by Article 142 of the constitution, the Court declined to grant the requested relief citing jurisdictional challenges stemming from attempting to merge FIRs that were subject to diverse legal frameworks and state-specific enactments.
"In the instant case, the offences are registered against the petitioner herein not only under the provisions of Indian Penal Code (IPC) but also invoking the respective State enactments which are made for protection of investors and under each of the State enactments, special courts have been designated to take cognizance and try offences against the accused therein. Therefore, any clubbing of the FIRs would mean that the jurisdiction of the special courts constituted in each of the States would be taken away and a special jurisdiction would be conferred on one of the Courts where the FIRs are to be clubbed to try the offences which arise under the different State enactments."
In its final decision, the Suprme Court reserved liberty for the petitioner to approach jurisdictional High Courts for case-specific considerations. This included the possibility of consolidating FIRs within each state and pursuing other legal remedies tailored to the specific legal frameworks applicable in each jurisdiction.
Case Title: Amandeep Singh Saran vs. The State of Delhi and Ors.
Coram: Hon'ble Ms. Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
Case no.: Writ Petition (Criminal) No(s). 341 of 2022
Advocates for the Petitioner: Mr. J.S. Attri, Sr. Adv., Mr. Varinder Kumar Sharma, AOR, Mr. Y.K. Prasad, Adv., Mr. Shantanu Sharma, Adv., and Ms. Deeksha Gaur, Adv.
Advocates for the Respondents: Mr. Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, AOR, Mr. Sumeer Sodhi, AOR, Dr. Joseph Aristotle S., AOR, Mr. D. K. Devesh, AOR, Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR, Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, AOR, and Mr. Sunny Choudhary, AOR
Read Order @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :