Multiple FIRs — Same transaction — Criminal conspiracy — Cheating of multiple victims — Clubbing of FIRs — Sections 218–223 CrPC
HEADNOTE (Consolidated, Court-faithful)
Multiple deposits pursuant to a single conspiracy — Whether separate FIRs mandatory
Paras 9–13, 15–16, 18–23
Where multiple acts of cheating are alleged to have been committed pursuant to a single criminal conspiracy, the registration of a single FIR and treatment of subsequent complaints as statements under Section 161 CrPC is permissible, subject to the ultimate determination whether such acts form part of the ‘same transaction’. Whether offences constitute the same transaction depends on unity of purpose or design, proximity of time and place, and continuity of action. The requirement of separate FIRs for each victim is not mandatory at the threshold; consolidation or separation is to be determined by the Magistrate at the stage of framing of charges under Sections 220(1) and 223(a) & (d) CrPC. The contrary view mandating separate FIRs for each deposit is unsustainable.
ANALYSIS (What the Supreme Court Precisely Held)
1. Core issue — “Same transaction” (Paras 9–11, 19–20)
The Court held that the decisive issue is whether the alleged offences form part of the “same transaction”. The expression is not statutorily defined and must be assessed on facts, applying well-settled tests:
unity of purpose and design,
proximity of time and place, and
continuity of action.
These tests are not cumulative; existence of one or more may suffice.
2. Conspiracy and multiple acts of cheating (Paras 9–10, 21–22)
Relying on S. Swamirathnam and Cheemalapati Ganeswara Rao, the Court reaffirmed that:
a single conspiracy may give rise to multiple acts, and
such acts do not become distinct transactions merely because they involve different victims or amounts, if they are in pursuance of the same design.
Where a conspiracy is alleged under Section 120B IPC, multiple acts of cheating flowing from it may constitute the same transaction.
3. FIR jurisprudence — T.T. Antony line (Paras 13, 15–16)
The Court reiterated that:
there cannot be a second FIR in respect of the same cognizable offence or the same transaction;
subsequent information relating to the same transaction is to be treated as statements under Section 161 CrPC;
complainants so treated retain the right to file protest petitions if a closure report is filed or if discharge is proposed.
4. Clubbing of FIRs and trials — Permissibility (Paras 13–17, 19–20)
The Court noted consistent precedent permitting:
consolidation of FIRs and trials where offences arise from the same transaction, and
even exercise of Article 142 jurisdiction to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, in appropriate cases.
However, where offences are distinct and independent, separate trials may be necessary (as explained in Lalu Prasad Yadav).
5. Narinderjit Singh Sahni distinguished (Para 18)
The Court observed that Narinderjit Singh Sahni treated each deposit as a separate transaction, but noted that:
the decision lacked detailed statutory and transactional analysis, and
later three-Judge Bench decisions reflect the prevailing legal position, which is not an inflexible rule requiring separate FIRs for each deposit.
6. Role of the Magistrate and stage of decision (Paras 20–22)
The Court held that:
the question whether offences form part of the same transaction cannot be conclusively determined at the FIR stage;
it is for the Magistrate, on completion of investigation, to decide at the stage of framing of charges whether Section 220(1) and Section 223 CrPC apply;
if the acts form the same transaction, one trial is permissible; if not, separate trials must follow, subject to Section 219 CrPC / Section 242 BNSS.
7. Error of the High Court and premature reference (Paras 21–23)
The Court held that:
the reference made by the Additional Sessions Judge was premature, investigation being incomplete at that stage;
the High Court erred in mandating separate FIRs and separate charge-sheets for each deposit;
answers to questions (a) and (b) by the High Court were therefore set aside.
RATIO DECIDENDI
In cases alleging cheating of multiple victims pursuant to a single criminal conspiracy, registration of one FIR and treatment of subsequent complaints as statements under Section 161 CrPC is permissible; whether the acts constitute the ‘same transaction’ is to be determined by the Magistrate at the stage of framing of charges under Sections 220(1) and 223 CrPC, and separate FIRs for each deposit are not mandatory.
