Multiple FIRs for Same Transaction of Offence Is Abuse of Process: Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court has fortified the 'test of sameness' in criminal jurisprudence, ruling that multiple FIRs arising from a singular continuous transaction constitute a gross abuse of the statutory power of investigation. By ordering the clubbing of multiple FIRs for same offence registered across various districts against a member of a co-operative society, the Bench reinforced the constitutional protection against procedural harassment through repetitive proceedings.

In a significant intervention, a Bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh and Justice Tarun Saxena adjudicated upon the legality of successive FIRs lodged against an individual regarding the non-payment of maturity amounts by a Multi-State Credit Co-operative Society. The Court examined whether these subsequent filings, though by different complainants, formed part of the same transaction under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

Judicial Rationale and the 'Test of Sameness'

The Allahabad High Court noted that while there is no absolute prohibition against a second FIR, a successive FIR cannot be sustained where it relates to the same transaction. Relying on T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala & others ( "(2001) 6 SCC 181": 2001 CaseBase(SC) 983), the Bench emphasized that the police's power to investigate is subject to well-recognized limitations. The Bench applied a five-pronged test to determine 'sameness': unity of incident, continuity of action, proximity of time and place, nature of allegations, and similarity of accused persons.

The Allahabad High Court explained the rules on multiplicity of FIRs that "A conjoint reading of the aforesaid decisions leaves little room for doubt that there is no absolute prohibition against the registration of a second FIR. Equally, it is well-settled that a successive FIR cannot be sustained where it relates to the same transaction or the same incident. The guiding test is not only as to whether the alleged offences are similar or whether they took place within the jurisdiction of different police stations, but as to whether the subsequent FIR pertains to a distinct incident or whether both FIRs form part of one continuous or same transaction."

Consolidation to Subserve Ends of Justice

Citing Amit Katyal & another v. State of Haryana & another ( "2026 SCC OnLine SC 890": 2026 CaseBase(SC) 595), the Allahabad High Court observed that consolidation ensures a coordinated investigation and protects the petitioner's right to mount an effective defense. The Bench further referenced State (NCT Delhi) Vs. Khimji Bhai Jadeja to establish that instances of cheating pursuant to one single conspiracy do not split into several conspiracies, even if different victims are involved over a period of time.

Background

The petitioner, an ordinary member of the Loni Urban Multi-State Credit & Thrift Co-operative Society (LUCC), was named in at least 14 FIRs across Lalitpur district. The complainants alleged that they were induced to deposit funds with promises of doubled returns, which the society failed to honor upon maturity. The petitioner contended that as an ordinary member, he had no role in management and that the multiple FIRs were a vexatious attempt to harass him.

The State opposed the clubbing, arguing that the complainants were different and the causes of action distinct. However, the Court, following Babubhai v. State of Gujarat & others and Anju Chaudhary v. State of Uttar Pradesh & another ( "(2013) 6 SCC 384": 2012 CaseBase(SC) 705), found that the foundation of all FIRs was identical: the non-payment of deposits by the same society. Consequently, the Allahabad High Court allowed the writ petition, directing the merger of all subsequent FIRs into the first registered case at Kotwali Lalitpur.

Case Details:
Case No.: CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10787 of 2026
Case Title: Bharat Verma Versus State of U.P. and 14 others
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Anurag Tripathi
For the Respondent(s): G.A.

Source: 2026 CaseBase(ALL) 1168