Writ Petition under Article 32 – Clubbing of FIRs – Maintainability – Prayer for consolidation of FIRs registered in multiple States (Telangana, Karnataka, Maharashtra, West Bengal, Delhi, Andhra Pradesh, Rajasthan) on allegations of financial fraud/defalcation of investors’ funds – Petitioners also sought clubbing of future FIRs – Held, prayer for consolidation of FIRs across States and for clubbing of future FIRs is overambitious and impermissible in law – [Amandeep Singh Saran v. State of Delhi (2023 SCC OnLine SC 1851)] relied on – Court cannot grant blanket order preventing registration of future FIRs.
-
Clubbing of FIRs – Distinction between identical offences & distinct transactions – Where offences arise from distinct acts of cheating investors across multiple States, though modus operandi may be similar, each FIR represents unique factual substratum and separate cause of action – Unlike Amish Devgan v. Union of India (2021) 1 SCC 1 where one telecasted statement gave rise to multiple FIRs – Here, consolidation across States impractical, since witnesses (investors) are spread across jurisdictions.
-
Exercise of Power under Article 142 – Radhey Shyam v. State of Haryana (W.P.(Crl.) No.75/2020, order dated 12.05.2022) distinguished – That consolidation was by consent of States – No such consent here.
-
Limited Transfer Permitted –
-
Telangana: 4 FIRs – Three lodged with EOW Cyberabad, one at Madhapur PS – Madhapur FIR transferred to EOW Cyberabad.
-
Maharashtra: 2 FIRs – At Ambazari (Nagpur City) & Wagle Estate (Thane City) – Wagle Estate FIR transferred to Ambazari, Nagpur City.
-
Other States (Karnataka, West Bengal, Delhi, Andhra Pradesh, Rajasthan): No transfer – consolidation refused.
-
-
Statutory Provision Noted – Section 242 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023 permits trial of up to five offences of same kind within 12 months – Court observed provision but held not applicable for clubbing across States at investigation stage.
-
Bail & Protection from Arrest –
-
Petitioners already in custody – Directed to be released on bail subject to conditions imposed by jurisdictional Magistrate, including cooperation in investigation.
-
Petitioners against whom warrants are pending – Not to be arrested for six months.
-
Within six months, petitioners must approach jurisdictional courts for regular bail – Such applications to be considered and decided on the same day.
-
Production warrants not to be acted upon during six months.
-
Protection order is time-bound (six months) – Non-cooperation permits investigating agency to seek cancellation of bail.
-
-
Costs for Witnesses – If FIR transferred, prosecution witnesses compelled to travel shall be paid expenses by accused through court.
Writ Petitions partly allowed – Limited transfer of FIRs within Telangana & Maharashtra only – No consolidation across States – Bail protection for six months with conditions2025 INSC 1174
Page 1 of 11
W.P.(CRL.) D.NO.26673 OF 2025
Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. of 2025
[@Diary No.26673 of 2025]
Odela Satyam & Anr.
…Petitioners
Versus
The State of Telangana & Ors.
…Respondents
W I T H
Writ Petition (Criminal) No.269 of 2025
Writ Petition (Criminal) No.313 of 2025
Writ Petition (Criminal) No.320 of 2025
Writ Petition (Criminal) No.321 of 2025
Writ Petition (Criminal) No.319 of 2025
J U D G M E N T
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
1. The Writ Petition (Criminal) Dy. No.26673 of 2025 was
filed by the father of the Partner and Additional Director and
the friend of the Managing Director of a firm, in which the
accused have now filed an application for substitution by Crl.
M.P. No.187608 of 2025, which is allowed. Writ Petition (Crl.)
Page 2 of 11
W.P.(CRL.) D.NO.26673 OF 2025
No.269 of 2025, Writ Petition (Crl.) No.313 of 2025 and Writ
Petition (Crl.) No.320 of 2025 are filed by persons in
management of the firm, and Writ Petition (Crl.) No.319 of
2025 and Writ Petition (Crl.) No.321 of 2025 are filed by the
wife and father of the petitioner in Writ Petition (Crl.) No.320
of 2025. There is no FIR as such registered against the
petitioners in Writ Petition (Crl.) Nos. 319 of 2025 & No.321 of
2025, as we see from the records.
2. The petitioners have filed the above writ petition
seeking clubbing of FIRs filed in various States and also seeks
for clubbing of future FIRs to be filed against the firm, its
partners and management officials. The case for clubbing of
such FIRs is projected on the ground that the multiple FIRs
have been lodged on the very same cause of action and the
investigation and prosecution has to be brought under one
roof, which would be enabled by clubbing all the FIRs to one
single Police Station where the first crime was registered.
3. The State of Telangana, where the maximum number of
crimes were registered, that too by the Economic Offences
Wing, Cyberabad has filed counter affidavit resisting the
prayers. It is pointed out that the crimes were committed by
Page 3 of 11
W.P.(CRL.) D.NO.26673 OF 2025
the accused in different places of the country, though the
allegation is same, of defalcation of money received from
unsuspecting investors. The modus operandi of the crime is
the same, but the essential facts are different, and the
individual crime proper has ramifications which are unique in
each such transactions and also involves offences under the
enactments in the different States; brought in to ensure
protection of investors and depositors in financial institutions.
Insofar as the State of Telangana is concerned, the offence
alleged would also include those under Telangana Protection
of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999.
4. From the records, it is seen that there are crimes
registered in the States of Karnataka, Maharashtra, West
Bengal, Delhi, Andhra Pradesh and Rajasthan in addition to
Telangana. Multiple FIRs within a State is only in Telangana,
wherein four FIRs were registered and Maharashtra, wherein
two FIRs were registered.
5. At the outset, it has to be observed that the prayers
made in the Writ Petition for clubbing of FIRs from various
States and also regarding the future FIRs are overambitious
and outright illegal as has been noticed in Amandeep Singh
Page 4 of 11
W.P.(CRL.) D.NO.26673 OF 2025
Saran v. State of Delhi and Others1. The prayer regarding
future FIRs is one which cannot be granted by any court of
law. The further contention that a similar relief was granted in
Radhey Shyam v. State of Haryana2 by order dated
12.05.2022 should be replicated here also, has been dealt
with in Aman Deep Singh1. The power exercised under
Radhey Shyam2 was under Article 142 of the Constitution of
India that too with the consent of the States.
6. Reliance was also placed on Amish Devgan v. Union of
India and Others3 wherein the petitioner – accused was a
journalist who had been hosting and anchoring a debate
show on a TV channel. The petitioner had, in the course of the
debate, made some observations about a person revered by
a community, which was alleged to have caused hurt and
incited religious hatred towards a community. Seven FIRs
were registered in various parts of the country. While finding
that the petitioner could have approached the High Court for
appropriate relief, since detailed arguments were addressed
by both sides on maintainability of the FIRs and to avoid
1 2023 SCC Online SC 1851
2 W.P.(Crl.) No.75 of 2020
3
(2021) 1 SCC 1
Page 5 of 11
W.P.(CRL.) D.NO.26673 OF 2025
multiplicity of litigation, though this Court refused to quash
the FIRs but directed investigation to be carried out
independently of such refusal. On the second prayer
regarding the multiplicity of the FIRs, reliance was placed on
T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala and Others4, which held that
there can be no second FIR where information concerns the
same cognizable offence alleged in the first FIR of the same
occurrence or incident which gives rise to one or more
cognizable offences. However, in Upkar Singh v. Ved
Prakash and Others5, various decisions after T.T. Antony4
was noticed to hold that T.T. Antony4 does not preclude the
filing of a second complaint in regard to the same incident as
a counter complaint nor is the cause of action prohibited by
Cr.P.C.
7. This Court in Amish Devgan3 followed the ratio in T.T.
Antony4
to the effect that the subsequent FIR would be treated
as statements under Section 162 of the Cr.P.C. It was held that
this would be fair and just to the complainants, at whose
behest the FIRs were registered, since they would be in a
4
(2001) 6 SCC 181
5
(2004) 13 SCC 292
Page 6 of 11
W.P.(CRL.) D.NO.26673 OF 2025
position to file a protest petition in case a closure report is
filed by the Police. It was in the above circumstances that the
cases at serial Nos. 2 to 7, in the tabulation of cases extracted
in the decision was transferred to the Police Station wherein
the first FIR was registered.
8. It has to be noticed that therein, the offence was one, of
an alleged objectionable statement leading to hurting of
religious sentiments telecast in a television show; which
stands distinct from the instant case wherein FIRs were
registered on the complaints of the investors of depositors
who were alleged to have been duped by the firm diverting
the funds leading to loss of their life’s savings. We cannot
forget that after investigation if a charge sheet is filed, the trial
will have to be proceeded with, producing witnesses, being
the investors of depositors, from the various locations. In
which event the clubbing of FIRs from all the States would not
be practical.
9. In this context we also refer to the decision in Amanat
Ali v. State of Karnataka and Others6, wherein also prayer
6
(2023) 14 SCC 801
Page 7 of 11
W.P.(CRL.) D.NO.26673 OF 2025
was under Article 32 and 142 for consolidation of FIRs
alleging fraud of scam carried out by a certain company. This
court followed the principles laid down in Amish Devgan3
and invoked the power conferred under Article 142 of the
Constitution of India but only permitted consolidation of the
FIRs registered in the State of Madhya Pradesh. The prayer
for transfer of cases pending in the States of Karnataka and
Jharkhand were specifically rejected.
10. We have to also notice Section 242 of Bharathiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023 which enables offences of
same kind within a year to be charged together. Section 242
provides that when a person is accused of more offences than
one, of the same kind, committed within the space of twelve
months, from the first to the last of such offences, whether in
respect of the same person or not, he may be charged with,
and tried at one trial for any number of them not exceeding
five.
11. In the present case the FIRs filed are the following:
Sl.
No.
FIR No. Offences
under
Section
Police Station Dated No. of
Accused
Current Accused No.
& Name
TELANGANA
1. 10 of 2025 S.318 (4)
BNS
EOW,
Cyberabad
11.02.20
25
20 Yogendra Singh (A2)
Kavya Nalluri (A5)
Page 8 of 11
W.P.(CRL.) D.NO.26673 OF 2025
[Annex P7,
Pg.169-201]
S.316 (2)
BNS
S.5 TSPDFEA
Pawan Odela (A7)
Aryan Singh Chhabra
(A3)
Note – Sandeep Kumar
while not named in
FIR, WP (Crl.) 320 of
2025 pleads that
Sandeep is Accused
21 in FIR 10 of 2025
2. 11 of 2025
[@ Annex P8,
pg. 202-235]
S.318 (4)
BNS
S.316 (2)
BNS
S.5,
TSPDFEA
EOW
Cyberabad
11.02.20
25
20 Yogendra Singh (A2)
Kavya Nalluri (A5)
Pawan Odela (A7)
Aryan Singh Chhabra
(A3)
3. 12 of 2025
[@ Annex P9,
pg.236-242]
S.318 (4)
BNS
S.316 (2)
BNS
S.5,
TSPDFEA
EOW
Cyberabad
11.02.20
2
1 No. Against Falcon
Invoice Discounting
Firm & Staff
4. 215 of 2025
[Annex P10,
pg. 243-250]
S.318 (4),
S.316 (2),
S.61 (2) BNS
S.5,
TSPDFEA
Madhapur,
Cyberabad
11.02.20
2
3 Pawan Odela (A2)
Yogendra Singh (A3)
KARNATAKA
1. 7 of 2025
[Annex P12,
pg. 292-300]
S.66 (C), 66
(D) IT Act.
2000
S.21,
Banning of
Unregulated
Deposit
Schemes
Act, 2019
S.318 (4),
319 (2) BNS
Cybercrime
PS, Bengaluru
City
20.02.20
25
14 Yogendra Singh (A2)
Pawan Odela (A3)
Kavya Nalluri (A6)
Aryan Singh Chhabra
(A4)
MAHARASHTRA
1. 124 of 2025
[Annex P14,
pg. 308-321]
S.66(D) IT
Act 2000
S.318 (4),
316 (2) BNS
Ambazari,
Nagpur City
07.03.20
25
2 Falcon & ICICI
2. 210 of 2025
[Annex P19,
pg. 364-381]
S.3(5), 318
(4), 316 (2)
BNS
Wagle Estate,
Thane City
29.03.20
25
8 Pawan Odela (A3)
Kavya Nalluri (A4)
Yogendra Singh (A5)
WEST BENGAL
1. 71 of 2025
[Annex P15,
pg. 322-331]
S.316 (2),
318 (4) BNS
Laketown,
Bidhannagar
08.03.20
25
3 Pawan Odela (A2)
Yogendra Singh (A3)
DELHI
1. 36 of 2025
[Annex P16,
pg.332-343]
S.316 (2),
318 (2),
61(2) BNS
S.3 Delhi
Protection of
Interest of
Depositors
Act, 2001
EOW New
Delhi
20.03.20
25
7 Pawan Odela (A3)
Kavya Nalluri (A4)
Yogendra Singh (A5)
ANDHRA PRADESH
1. 120 of 2025 S.316 (2),
318 (4), BNS
Amalapuram
Town
29.03.20
25
1 -
Page 9 of 11
W.P.(CRL.) D.NO.26673 OF 2025
[Annex P17,
pg. 344-348]
S.66 D, IT
Act
RAJASTHAN
1. 81 of 2025
[Annex P18,
pg. 349-363]
S.316 (2),
318 (4), 61
(2) BNS
Sardarpura,
Jodhpur
11.04.20
25
6 Yogendra Singh (A1)
Kavya Nalluri (A4)
Pawan Odela (A6)
Aryan Singh (A2)
12. As we noticed, in Telangana there were 4 crimes
registered, three by the Economic Offences Wing,
Cyberabad and one in Madhapur, Cyberabad. Hence the FIR
registered in Madhapur, Cyberabad will stand transferred to
Economic Offences Wing, Cyberabad. In the State of
Maharashtra, there are two FIRs registered, One in Ambazari,
Nagpur city and the other in Wagle Estate, Thane City. The
FIR 210 of 2025 registered in Wagle Estate, Thane City will be
transferred to Ambazari, Nagpur City. The clubbing of the
single FIRs filed in the State of Karnataka, West Bengal, Delhi,
Andhra Pradesh and Rajasthan stand rejected.
13. It is made clear that if and when the trial commences,
witnesses from the prosecution, if travelling from the police
station limits in which the FIR was originally registered to the
Court having jurisdiction over the Police Station to which it
has been transferred by this order, then necessarily the Court
trying the case shall award costs to defray the expenses of
Page 10 of 11
W.P.(CRL.) D.NO.26673 OF 2025
travel and residence, if the residence is necessitated for the
purpose of examination of the witnesses, which shall be paid
by the accused herein through the Court.
14. We notice that some of the petitioners are under arrest
and are languishing in jail. Considering the fact that they have
spent months together in jail, they shall be released on bail
on such conditions imposed by the Jurisdictional Magistrate,
including that of cooperation in the investigation. Others
against whom warrants are pending shall not be arrested. The
above order shall be continued for a period of six months.
Within the six-month period the petitioners shall appear
before the Jurisdictional Courts in which the various FIRs are
registered praying for regular bail, which shall be
considered on the same day and granted on conditions found
appropriate including the condition of cooperating with the
investigation.
15. The production warrants issued by the Jurisdictional
Courts against the petitioners shall not be acted upon for the
six months provided herein, within which time the petitioners
shall appear before the respective Courts and seek bail. It is
made clear that the petitioners would be obliged to
Page 11 of 11
W.P.(CRL.) D.NO.26673 OF 2025
cooperate with the investigation and any failure of that or the
other conditions imposed would enable the Investigating
Agency to approach the Jurisdictional Court for cancellation
of bail. This order granting protection from coercive steps to
those who are released on bail and those against whom
warrants are pending shall be only in force for the six-month
period stipulated herein, within which time the petitioners
will approach the jurisdictional courts and if not, the police
would be entitled to proceed in accordance with law.
16. The Writ Petitions are disposed of accordingly.
17. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
……….…………………….….. CJI.
(B. R. GAVAI)
……….…………………….….. CJI.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)
NEW DELHI;
SEPTEMBER 26, 2025.
