Ranganadhan vs Versus State Of Kerala
2026 Latest Caselaw 1496 Ker

Kerala High Court

Ranganadhan vs Versus State Of Kerala on 12 February, 2026

Author: K. Babu

Bench: K. Babu

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                         PRESENT

            THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU

  THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 23RD MAGHA,

                          1947

                WP(CRL.) NO. 1599 OF 2025

PETITIONER/S:

    1    RANGANADHAN V S
         AGED 65 YEARS
         MANAGING DIRECTOR, MELKER FINANCE & LEASING
         PVT. LTD., RESIDING AT VALATH HOUSE,
         KOORKANCHERRY P.O, THRISSUR NOW UNDER
         IMPRISONMENT IN DISTRICT JAIL, VIYOOR,
         THRISSUR, PIN - 680007

    2    VASANTHY RANGANATHAN
         AGED 61 YEARS
         MANAGING DIRECTOR, MELKER FINANCE & LEASING
         PVT. LTD., RESIDING AT VALATH HOUSE,
         KOORKANCHERRY P.O, THRISSUR NOW UNDER
         IMPRISONMENT IN DISTRICT JAIL, VIYOOR,
         THRISSUR, PIN - 680007


         BY ADVS.
         SHRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM
         SMT.MERCIAMMA MATHEW
         SRI.ASWIN.P.JOHN
         SHRI.R.ANANTHAPADMANABAN
         SHRI.PAUL BABY
         SMT.SWATHY A.P.
         SMT.FOUSIYA R
         SMT.THARA ELIZABETH THOMAS
         SHRI.MIDHUN A.
         SHRI.ANSIF S.
 WP(Crl). NO. 1599 OF 2025
                                ..2..


                                                       2026:KER:13210


RESPONDENT/S:

    1       STATE OF KERALA
            REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT
            OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN
            - 695001

    2       STATE POLICE CHIEF
            STATE POLICE HEADQUARTERS, VELLAYAMBALAM,
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695010

    3       STATION HOUSE OFFICER
            THRISSUR EAST POLICE STATION, THRISSUR, PIN -
            680021



OTHER PRESENT:

            ADV N RASANGEETHA RAJ PP


        THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION    ON   12.02.2026,   THE     COURT   ON   THE   SAME   DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(Crl). NO. 1599 OF 2025
                                ..3..


                                                       2026:KER:13210




                              ORDER

The petitioners are husband and wife. Petitioner

No.1 is the Managing Director of Melkar Finance and

Leasing Private Ltd ('the company' for short). Petitioner

No.2 is one of the Directors of the Company. As many as

35 crimes have been registered against the company and

the petitioners alleging that a total sum of Rs.

7,42,14,860/- was appropriated by them from different

persons.

2. The prosecution alleges that the petitioners and

the other accused induced the de facto

complainants/victims to deposit money with the company

by offering an assured rate of interest ranging from

13.25% to 13.50%. Acting upon the inducement, the

victims deposited the amount with the company.

3. The Investigating Officer arrested the WP(Crl). NO. 1599 OF 2025 ..4..

2026:KER:13210

petitioners on 15.10.2025 and conducted searches at the

corporate office of the company situated at Sakthan

Nagar, Trissuur, the branch office located at Marar Road,

Thrissur and at their residence at Kunnankulangara. In

the search, the Investigating Officer seized computer

hard disks , deposit - related documents, brochures, seal

of the company, building lease agreement, fixed deposit

receipts, transaction registers etc. They have been in

judicial custody. The investigation is progressing. As

many as 34 other crimes have also been registered

against them. The Investigating Officer effected the

formal arrest of the petitioners in the connected crimes.

The petitioners seek consolidation of the various FIRs

registered against them.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the

petitioners Shri. Thomas Abraham and the learned

Special Public Prosecutor Sri. P. Narayanan. WP(Crl). NO. 1599 OF 2025 ..5..

2026:KER:13210

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners

submitted that the settled law is that the multiplicity of

the proceedings will not be in the larger public interest.

The learned counsel relied on Radhey Shyam v. State

of Haryana and others [2022 KHC 5870],

Rahamathulla v. State of Tamil Nadu [2025 KHC

7292] and Ravinder Singh Sidhu v. State of Punjab

[2025 (4) KHC 345] in support of his contention. The

learned counsel submitted that the proper course to be

adopted is to treat the first FIR as the principal FIR and

all other FIRs as statements under Section 161 Cr.PC.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that

as the offences are allegedly based on different facts,

each victim has a right to prosecute his complaint against

the petitioners. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted

that the various crimes registered against the petitioners

do not come under the definition 'same transaction'. The WP(Crl). NO. 1599 OF 2025 ..6..

2026:KER:13210

learned Public Prosecutor submitted that only when the

person accused of multiple offences committed in the

course of the same transaction could be charged and

tried together. The learned Public Prosecutor relied on

State (NCT) Delhi v. Khimji Bhai Jadeja [SLP (Crl)

No.9198 of 2019], and Anubhav Mittal and Ors. v. The

State of Uttar Pradesh [2022 KHC 8024] and

Narinderjit Singh Sahni v. Union of India and others

[(2002) 2 SCC 210] in support of his contentions.

7. In the statement filed by respondent No.3, it is

pleaded that the facts and circumstances of each case are

materially different. It is further submitted that each FIR

has been filed by different complainants whose

statements and grievances are independent of one

another. It is the submission of respondent No.3 that the

evidence in each case is specific to the particular FIR. It

is also contended that each case is at different stage of WP(Crl). NO. 1599 OF 2025 ..7..

2026:KER:13210

investigation and therefore, consolidation may hamper

the progress of ongoing investigation.

8. In Radhey Shyam v. State of Haryana and

Others, a three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court,

taking note of multiple FIRs in connection with a network

marketing scheme, directed the clubbing of all FIRs

registered in 12 States, considering the fact that the

States had raised no objection to such a course of action

and that multiplicity of proceedings is not in the larger

public interest. In Ravinder Singh Sidhu v. State of

Punjab, the Supreme Court observed that it is well

settled that multiplicity of proceedings is not in the larger

public interest and directed the clubbing of various FIRs

registered in different States. In Rahamathulla v. State

of Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court, exercising powers

under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, directed WP(Crl). NO. 1599 OF 2025 ..8..

2026:KER:13210

the consolidation of different FIRs, taking into account

the fact that an inflammatory speech was delivered,

attracting offences under Sections 153A, 505(1)(b),

505(1)(c), 505(2), 506(1) and 109 of the IPC.

9. In Narinderjit Singh Sahni v. Union of India

and Others, a three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court,

while dealing with a case involving 250 FIRs registered

across the country on allegation that the directors of a

company had siphoned off depositors' money pursuant to

a criminal conspiracy, held that each individual deposit

agreement had to be treated as a separate and

independent transaction, brought about by the

allurement of financial companies, and that since the

parties were different, the amount deposited and the

period of deposit were also different, the transactions

contained the characteristics of independent

transactions. In Anubhav Mittal and Ors. v. The WP(Crl). NO. 1599 OF 2025 ..9..

2026:KER:13210

State of Uttar Pradesh the Supreme Court observed

thus:-

"The alleged cheating and connected offences have occurred at different parts of the country and each victim under the existing provisions of law has a right to prosecute his complaints against the petitioners through the law enforcement agency under normal circumstances having power to conduct investigation in the particular territory where complaint is lodged."

10. Section 218(1) of the Cr.PC requires a distinct

and separate charge for every distinct offence and each

such separate charge should be tried separately. Under

Section 219 of the Cr.P.C., three such offences committed

within a year can be made the subject matter of a single

trial. The corresponding provision under the BNSS,

namely Section 242, provides that five such offences may

be made the subject matter of a single trial. The

application of Sections 218 and 219 of Cr.PC comes into WP(Crl). NO. 1599 OF 2025 ..10..

2026:KER:13210

play only when the offences form part of the same

transaction.

11. It is settled law that the following tests are to

be applied to decide whether separate actions can be

treated as part of the "same transaction":- (1) unity of

purpose and design (2) proximity of time and place (3)

continuity of action.

12. In S.Swamirathnam v. State of Madras [AIR

1957 SC 340], while dealing with instances of cheating

pursuant to one conspiracy, a three Judge Bench of the

Supreme Court held that the several incidents of cheating

pursuant to the one conspiracy form part of the same

transaction. In State of Andhra Pradesh v.

Cheemalapati Ganeshwara Rao [AIR 1963 SC 1850],

the Supreme Court held 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 WP(Crl). NO. 1599 OF 2025 ..11..

2026:KER:13210

infer that they form part of the same transaction. In

State of Jharkhand through SP, Central Bureau of

Investigation v. Lalu Prasad Yadav alias Lalu Prasad

[(2017) 8 SCC 1], the Supreme Court held that if a

conspiracy is furthered in several distinct offences, there

have to be separate trials.

13. In State (NCT) Delhi v. Khimji Bhai Jadeja

while answering a question whether in a case of

inducement, allurement and cheating of large number of

investors/depositors in pursuance to a criminal

conspiracy, each deposit by an investor constitutes a

separate and individual transaction or all such

transactions can be amalgamated and clubbed into a

single FIR by showing one investor as complainant and

others as witnesses, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed

thus:-

"21. ....the reference by the learned Additional WP(Crl). NO. 1599 OF 2025 ..12..

2026:KER:13210

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. The investigation was still ongoing and it could not have been ascertained at that stage as to whether the alleged offences formed part and parcel of the same transaction. Even otherwise, consolidation of FIRs is permissible in law but that would have also depended upon the conclusions to be arrived at after the investigation.....

22. The inference to be drawn from the chargesheets, as filed, is left to the Magistrate concerned to consider, so as to ascertain whether the various acts of cheating attributed to the accused persons constitute part of the 'same transaction', thereby bringing them within the ambit of Section 220(1) CrPC and Section 223 (a) & (d) CrPC. If the offences formed part of the same transaction, the Magistrate would be entitled to charge and try them together, as enabled by the aforestated provisions, as it would be in the larger public interest to do so....."

14. I have gone through the factual materials

placed before the Court. The Investigating Officer WP(Crl). NO. 1599 OF 2025 ..13..

2026:KER:13210

reported that 35 crimes have been registered against the

petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections

406 and 420 r/w 34 IPC. The relevant portion of

statement filed by the Investigating Officer is extracted

below:-

"13.It is respectfully submitted that all the cases registered within the jurisdiction of Thrissur Town East Police Station are presently under investigation. Preliminary findings indicate that the accused persons have allegedly defrauded several individuals of substantial amounts of money within the jurisdiction of Thrissur Town East Police station. The cases registered against the petitioners berein are based on complaints filed by different persons, and the alleged offences occurred over different periods.

14. It is humbly submitted that, with regard to the consolidation of FIRs, although the offences may appear similar, the following factors make clubbing inappropriate: the facts and circumstances of each case are materially different, each FIR has been filed by different complainants, whose statements and grievances are independent of one another, the evidence in each case, including documents, electronic records, and WP(Crl). NO. 1599 OF 2025 ..14..

2026:KER:13210

witness statements, is specific to that particular FIR; and each case is at a different stage of investigation, such that consolidation may hamper the progress of ongoing inquiries. Furthermore, clubbing the FIRs could create confusion in analyzing individual liabilities and may prejudice the rights of the accused or complainants.

15. The investigation is only in the preliminary

stage. The petitioners are alleged to have deceived a

number of persons who invested their savings in the

company. The question whether each individual deposit

is to be treated as a separate and independent

transaction is a matter to be adjudicated at the

appropriate stage by the jurisdictional court. If the

offences form part of the same transaction, the Court

would be entitled to charge and try them together. The

learned counsel for the petitioners highlighted that, in

view of the multiplicity of proceedings, the petitioners are

not in a position to be released from jail. WP(Crl). NO. 1599 OF 2025 ..15..

2026:KER:13210

16. While dealing with a similar fact situation, in

Narinderjit Singh Sahni v. Union of India and

others, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed thus:-

57....In a country like ours, if an accused is alleged to have deceived millions of countrymen, who have invested their entire life's saving in such fictitious and frivolous companies promoted by the accused and when thousands of cases are pending against an accused in different parts of the country, can an accused at all complain of infraction of Article 21, on the ground that he is not being able to be released out of jail custody in view of different production warrants issued by different Courts. Issuance of production warrants by the Court and the production of accused in Court, in cases where he is involved is a procedure established by law and consequently, the accused cannot be permitted to make a complain of infraction of his rights under Article 21. In our considered opinion, it would be a misplaced sympathy of the Court on such while-collared accused persons whose acts of commission and omission has ruined a vast majority of poor citizens of this country...."

I am of the considered view that it is premature to WP(Crl). NO. 1599 OF 2025 ..16..

2026:KER:13210

arrive at a conclusion as to whether the various

transactions form the same transaction as contained in

Sections 218 and 219 of the Cr.P.C. Therefore, the Writ

Petition lacks merits and stands dismissed.

Sd/-

K. BABU, JUDGE

kkj WP(Crl). NO. 1599 OF 2025 ..17..

2026:KER:13210

APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) NO. 1599 OF 2025

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION OF THE COMPANY DATED 09/02/2010 EXHIBIT P2 THE LIST OF THE 44 BRANCHES OF THE COMPANY EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION PURSUANT TO THE SAID CHANGE OF NAME DATED 16/02/2022 ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES, GOA EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LEASE DEED DATED 23/12/2024 BETWEEN M/S. GOA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR AND M/S. MELKER TTI BIOFUEL PVT. LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE, THE 1ST PETITIONER HEREIN REGARDING THE INDUSTRIAL LAND BELONGING TO GOA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AREA EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION PURSUANT TO THE CHANGE OF NAME DATED 17/04/2025 EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICIAL BROCHURE WHICH FURNISHES THE DETAILS OF THE PRODUCT PORTFOLIO OF THE INDUSTRIAL PROJECT BY M/S. CENTREAL BIOFUELS LTD. EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 26/06/2025 BETWEEN (I) M/S. MAXTOWN EDUCATION & HEALTH CARE SERVICES PVT.

                      LTD., (II) M/S. MELKER FINANCE AND
                      LEASING   PVT.    LTD.  AND   (III)   M/S
                      CENTREAL    CONSULTANCY      PVT.    LTD,

EVIDENCING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF WP(Crl). NO. 1599 OF 2025 ..18..

2026:KER:13210

THE SHARE TRANSFER EXHIBIT P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO.1491 OF 2025 OF THRISSUR EAST POLICE STATION EXHIBIT P8(a) THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO.1500 OF 2025 OF THRISSUR EAST POLICE STATION EXHIBIT P8(b) THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO.1510 OF 2025 OF THRISSUR EAST POLICE STATION EXHIBIT P8(c) THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO.1750 OF 2025 OF THRISSUR EAST POLICE STATION EXHIBIT P8(d) THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO.1811 OF 2025 OF THRISSUR EAST POLICE STATION EXHIBIT P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PAPER PUBLICATION IN THE LEADING MALAYALAM NEWSPAPERS EXHIBIT P10 THE LIST OF THE DETAILS OF FIRS KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS REGISTERED AGAINST THEM APPENDED IN A TABULATED FORM EXHIBIT P11 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 DATED 07/11/2025 RESPONDENT ANNEXURES

ANNEXURE R3(a) TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILED LIST OF THE CASE AGAINST THE PETITIONER PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P12 The tabulated list showing the latest position regarding the FIRs registered against the petitioners