Appeal
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.) 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.
Petitioners have filed the writ petition to club the Firs filed in various states and future FIrs
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.
States where crime has happened
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.
Courts cannot grant the prayer of clubbing of present FIRs and future FIR which is overambitious and outright illegal
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 Saran v. State of Delhi and Others. 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 Haryana by order dated 12.05.2022 should be replicated here also, has been dealt with in Aman Deep Singh. The power exercised under Radhey Shyam2 was under Article 142 of the Constitution of India that too with the consent of the States.
When subsequent FIRs become section 161 Cr.P.C statements?
7. This Court in Amish Devgan followed the ratio in T.T. Antony 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 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.
Consolidation of FIRs is allowed within the state and not interstate clubbing of FIRs
9. In this context we also refer to the decision in Amanat Ali v. State of Karnataka and Others, wherein also prayer 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 Devgan 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.
Section 242 BNSS
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.
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.
Directions regarding travel and residence expenses of witnesses
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 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.
Judgments relied upon or cited
* Amandeep Singh Saran v. State of Delhi and Others (2023 SCC Online SC 1851)
* Radhey Shyam v. State of Haryana (W.P.(Crl.) No.75 of 2020, order dated 12.05.2022)
* Amish Devgan v. Union of India and Others ((2021) 1 SCC 1)
* T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala and Others ((2001) 6 SCC 181)
* Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash and Others ((2004) 13 SCC 292)
* Amanat Ali v. State of Karnataka and Others ((2023) 14 SCC 801)
Acts and Sections
* Telangana Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999
* Section 5
* Bharathiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023
* Section 242
* Section 318 (4)
* Section 316 (2)
* Section 61 (2)
* Section 319 (2)
* Section 3 (5)
* Information Technology Act, 2000
* Section 66 (C)
* Section 66 (D)
* Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019
* Section 21
* Delhi Protection of Interest of Depositors Act, 2001
* Section 3
Party
Odela Satyam & Anr. vs. The State of Telangana & Ors – Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 397 of 2025 (along with connected petitions: W.P.(Crl.) No.269 of 2025, W.P.(Crl.) No.313 of 2025, W.P.(Crl.) No.320 of 2025, W.P.(Crl.) No.321 of 2025, and W.P.(Crl.) No.319 of 2025) – 2025 INSC 1174 Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Vinod Chandran, J. and Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.R. Gavai – September 26, 2025.
