Recently, the Supreme Court was seized of an appeal arising from a reference made by a Sessions Court concerning the legality of registering a single FIR in cases involving alleged cheating of a large number of investors pursuant to an alleged criminal conspiracy. The appeal raised important questions on whether multiple acts of inducement and cheating could be treated as part of one transaction or required separate FIRs under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Brief Facts:
The case arose from FIR registered by the Economic Offences Wing, Delhi, under Sections 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The complaint alleged that the accused persons, including the respondent, falsely represented that one of them possessed divine powers capable of tripling money within a few days, thereby inducing members of the public to invest funds. During investigation, it emerged that 1,852 persons were allegedly cheated of approximately Rs. 46.40 crores. While only one FIR was registered, the remaining complainants were treated as witnesses and their complaints were recorded as statements under Section 161 CrPC. A charge sheet was filed in 2014, followed by six supplementary charge sheets. During the pendency of a bail application filed by the respondent, the Additional Sessions Judge referred certain questions of law to the High Court under Section 395(2) CrPC, leading to the impugned reference decision.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The counsel for the Appellant contended that the alleged acts of cheating were committed pursuant to one overarching criminal conspiracy and therefore constituted a single transaction. The counsel argued that registration of multiple FIRs for each depositor would be impractical, lead to multiplicity of proceedings, and unnecessarily burden the criminal justice system. The Appellant submitted that the CrPC permits consolidation of offences where they arise from the same transaction, and that treating all complaints under a single FIR was legally permissible. Reliance was placed on judicial precedents recognising unity of purpose and design as determinative of a single transaction.
Contentions of the Respondents:
The counsel for the Respondent supported the reasoning adopted by the High Court, contending that each act of inducement and deposit constituted a distinct offence, requiring a separate FIR. The counsel argued that clubbing all complaints into one FIR deprived individual victims of their procedural rights, including the right to file protest petitions. The Respondent further contended that amalgamating multiple transactions into one FIR could unfairly cap sentencing exposure and undermine the principle of proportionality in punishment.
Observation of the Court:
The Court first noted that the reference itself was premature, as it had been made at a stage when investigation was still ongoing and it was yet to be ascertained whether the alleged acts formed part of the same transaction. The Court observed that “The reference by the learned Additional Sessions Judge was premature, as the stage had not arisen for her to have entertained any doubt so as to raise the questions of law that she did for the decision of the High Court.”
Emphasising settled principles governing multiple FIRs and consolidation of offences, the Court reiterated that where allegations disclose unity of purpose, continuity of action and a common design, the offences may form part of the same transaction. Relying on Supreme Court of India precedents, the Court recalled the position laid down in Cheemalapati Ganeswara Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh and S. Swamirathnam v. State of Madras, noting that “Where several acts committed by a person show a unity of purpose or design, that would be a strong circumstance to indicate that those acts form part of the same transaction.”
The Court further relied on T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala and Amish Devgan v. Union of India to reiterate that there cannot be a second FIR in respect of the same cognizable offence or the same transaction, and that subsequent complaints can be treated as statements under Section 161 CrPC. In this context, the Court observed that “Once all the incidents are taken to be part of the same transaction and amalgamated into one FIR, the punishment would follow accordingly as per law.”
Finally, dealing with the concern that treating other complainants as witnesses would deprive them of remedies, the Court clarified that such complainants are not remediless and held that “The complainants, who would then be treated as witnesses… would be entitled to file protest petitions in the event of a closure report being filed or if the Magistrate is inclined to discharge the accused.”
The decision of the Court:
The Supreme Court allowed the State’s appeal and set aside the High Court’s view on mandatory registration of multiple FIRs. It held that a single FIR is permissible where acts arise from the same transaction pursuant to a criminal conspiracy. The matter of consolidation was left to be considered by the trial court at the stage of framing of charges.
Case Title: The State (NCT) of Delhi V. Khimji Bhai Jadeja
Case No.: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 9198 of 2019
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Alok Aradhe
Counsel for the Appellant: A.S.G. Aishwarya Bhati, AOR Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Adv. Rekha Pandey, Adv. Priyanka Das, Adv. Vishakha, Adv. Chitrangda Rashtravara, Adv. Shreya Jain.
Counsel for the Respondent: Not mentioned
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
