Supreme Court allows consolidation of complaints where offences form part of same transaction; sets aside Delhi HC directions on multiple FIRs

A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe heard the appeal filed by the State (NCT) of Delhi challenging a Division Bench judgment of the Delhi High Court which had held that in large-scale deposit frauds each depositor’s complaint must result in a separate FIR and that final reports could not be amalgamated. The issue related to whether, in cases of inducement, allurement and cheating of large numbers of investors pursuant to an alleged criminal conspiracy, each deposit constituted a separate transaction or whether complaints could be consolidated into a single FIR and proceeded with together.

The Court allowed the State’s appeal and set aside the High Court’s answers to questions (a) and (b) posed in Criminal Reference No. 1 of 2014. The Supreme Court held that consolidation and joint trial were permissible where the offences “formed part of the same transaction” and that determination of that question depended upon investigation and the magistrate’s assessment at the stage of framing charges. The Court observed that the reference to the High Court was premature because the investigation had not reached a stage to determine whether the incidents formed part of the same transaction. The Court further held that, where a conspiracy was alleged, the police’s course of registering one FIR and treating other complainants’ statements as statements under Section 161 CrPC could be “the correct course of action to have been adopted at that stage.” The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “As already noted hereinabove, precedential law has laid down triple tests, though not to be applied cumulatively, to decide when separate actions can be treated as part of the ‘same transaction’ – 1) unity of purpose and design; 2) proximity of time and place; and 3) continuity of action. These tests may be applied to ascertain whether a series of acts form part of the same transaction or not. It is not necessary at the present stage to consider whether consolidation of charges under Section 220(1) CrPC should be resorted to, as that would depend upon the opinion of the Magistrate on the strength of the findings recorded during the investigation. If it is opined that all the incidents partake of the same transaction, there can be one trial under Section 220(1) CrPC and Section 223(a) and (d) CrPC. If, however, it is concluded that there are several transactions and distinct offences in relation to different victims, there have to be separate trials for each offence, subject to Section 219 CrPC/ Section 242 BNSS, which allows the Trial Court to try three/five offences of the same kind committed within a year. 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.”

Background

The appeal arose from FIR No. 89 of 2009 registered by the Economic Offences Wing, Delhi, on a complaint alleging that promoters induced investors by falsely representing a divine power to “triple money”, resulting in 1,852 victims and alleged loss of ₹46.40 crores. The Additional Sessions Judge referred three questions to the Delhi High Court under Section 395(2) CrPC concerning whether each deposit constituted a separate transaction, how many such transactions could be clubbed, and whether accused could rely on a single maximum punishment by amalgamating transactions. The High Court answered that each deposit was a distinct transaction, separate final reports must be filed in respect of separate FIRs, and that consolidation into one FIR by treating others as witnesses would deprive complainants of procedural rights.

The State appealed. The Supreme Court reviewed a line of precedents including S. Swamirathnam, Cheemalapati Ganeswara Rao, Narinderjit Singh Sahni and subsequent rulings that addressed the concept of “same transaction”, unity of purpose and circumstances permitting clubbing of FIRs. The Court noted earlier decisions which permitted consolidation where subject matter was the same and observed that Sections 219–223 CrPC (and the updated provision under BNSS) provided statutory exceptions to the general rule requiring separate charges for distinct offences. The Court found the reference premature but, on facts developed during investigation and in the charge sheets, accepted that a criminal conspiracy (Section 120B IPC) was alleged and that the police’s registering of one FIR with other complainants treated as statements under Section 161 was appropriate at that stage. The Court left it to the trial magistrate to decide whether the acts constituted the same transaction and whether charges should be consolidated; it recorded that complainants treated as witnesses would be entitled to file protest petitions if a closure report were filed. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s answers to questions (a) and (b) and allowed the appeal.

Case Details: Case No.: 2026 INSC 25 Case Title: The State (NCT) of Delhi v. Khimji Bhai Jadeja Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Additional Solicitor General (for State of NCT of Delhi; name not specified) Amicus Curiae: Mr. R. Basant, Senior Counsel For the Respondent(s): Khimji Bhai Jadeja (did not appear)