LI Network
Published on: November 25, 2023 at 14:05 IST
The Supreme Court has recently rejected a petition seeking the consolidation of multiple FIRs against a petitioner, citing offenses not only under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) but also various state enactments safeguarding investors.
The court, led by Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan, declined to merge these FIRs, noting that each state had established special courts for such offenses, and combining them would undermine the jurisdiction of these specialized courts.
The Court emphasized, “In the instant case, the FIRs have been filed against the petitioner in the respective States not only invoking the provisions of the IPC but also the provisions of the respective State enactments, under which special Courts have been constituted to try the offences under those enactments which are made for the 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 special jurisdiction would be conferred on one of the Courts where the FIRs are to be clubbed to try the offenses which arise under the different State enactments.”
The Supreme Court bench heard a writ petition under Article 32 seeking to consolidate FIRs filed against the petitioner in various states across the country before an appropriate Investigating Agency/Court in the State of Delhi.
The petitioner, represented by Senior Advocate J.S. Attri, relied on the Radhey Shyam v. State of Haryana case, where 48 FIRs were consolidated to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. He sought a similar approach due to facing 10 FIRs in Chhattisgarh, 4 in Tamil Nadu, 8 in Rajasthan, 2 each in Maharashtra and Delhi, and 3 in Madhya Pradesh, with an additional FIR in Haryana, totaling 30 FIRs.
However, ASG Vikramjit Banerjee, representing the respondent, referred to a recent judgment in Balasaheb Keshawrao Bhapkar v. State of Maharashtra, emphasizing that the petitioner could approach jurisdictional High Courts for relief and consolidation of FIRs within each respective state.
The Court distinguished the present case from those involving Congress Spokesperson Pawan Khera and Mohammad Zubair, stating that the circumstances were different, as they dealt with a single common offense leading to multiple FIRs across the country.
After careful consideration, the Court concluded that the order in Radhey Shyam’s case couldn’t be replicated in the present scenario, as it was made under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and passed with the consent of the concerned states.
The Court, therefore, declined to exercise jurisdiction under Article 142 but granted the petitioner the liberty to approach each jurisdictional High Court to seek the consolidation of FIRs pending against them within each respective state.
Case Title: Amandeep Singh Sran v. State of Delhi
