Quashing of Multiple FIRs: A citizen of India may approach S.C through Article 32 is a fundamental right but may follow judicial principle and orderly procedure at first

Writ petition under Art.32 to quash multiple firs or clubbing of firs

The petitioner Rutvij Bhagat Singh Wakhare has instituted a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India before the Supreme Court of India, seeking principally the quashing of multiple First Information Reports registered against him across different States, or in the alternative, seeking the clubbing and consolidation of these subject FIRs along with a direction for a single composite investigation by a single investigating agency.

FIRs emerged from multiple states against Writ Petitioner

The allegations emerging from the FIRs registered in Maharashtra, Karnataka, and Odisha pertain to cyber fraud incidents where complainants were contacted by unknown persons posing as police officials, falsely informed about money laundering activities carried out in their names, and induced to transfer large sums of money, a part of which was credited to a bank account maintained in the name of the petitioner’s proprietary concern, M/s Al Zeba Marinen Overseas, though the petitioner is not named as an accused in the subject FIRs.

Contentions

The petitioner contended that he was serving abroad on a merchant ship, had no knowledge of the transactions, and that his bank account was misused by third parties (Ganesh Khaire and Krishnakant Sharma) who operated it for an online gaming business, while urging that multiple investigations in different jurisdictions cause prejudice and hardship due to his cardiac and diabetic conditions, whereas the respondent States contended that each FIR was filed by a distinct complainant for independent transactions involving separate acts and distinct offenses, making multiple investigations competent under law.

Analysis

Whether the subject FIRs should be quashed?

6. The principal relief sought by the petitioner is the quashing of the subject FIRs. Before examining whether such relief deserves to be granted, it would be apposite to consider whether a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution is maintainable for seeking quashing of an FIR.

When to invoke Article 32 of the Constitution?

7. Article 32 of the Constitution is the constitutional conduit through which this Court may issue ‘appropriate’ writs for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Part III. The right to approach this Court under Article 32 is itself a fundamental right and has been aptly described by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar as the ‘heart and soul’ of the Constitution. The jurisdiction conferred under Article 32 is undoubtedly wide. At the same time, it is an extraordinary remedy which must be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances, particularly when it is necessary to secure the ends of justice or to prevent the infringement of fundamental rights.

A citizen of India may approach S.C through Article 32 is a fundamental right but may follow judicial principle and orderly procedure at first

8. It is well settled that the power of this Court under Article 32 is broad enough to quash criminal proceedings in an appropriate case, so as to prevent abuse of the process of law. The existence of an alternative statutory remedy does not, by itself, bar the exercise of jurisdiction. However, as a matter of judicial principle and orderly procedure, an aggrieved party is expected, in the ordinary course, to firstly approach the High Court. It is only where the facts disclose a violation of fundamental right(s) or other compelling circumstances that this Court would directly exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 32. [See: Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras; Union of India v. Paul Manickam; Jagisha Arora v. State of U.P.; and Sunil Kumar Rai v. State of Bihar]

10. In the present case, the petitioner has only contended that, (i) he was serving abroad on a merchant ship; (ii) had no knowledge of the alleged transactions; and (iii) that the aforesaid bank account was operated and misused by Mr. Ganesh Khaire and Mr. Krishnakant Sharma. In our considered opinion, the petitioner has failed to establish infringement of any fundamental right warranting the exercise of this Court’s jurisdiction under Article 32. He has also not been able to show the existence of any exceptional or exigent circumstances so as to justify bypassing the procedure available under CrPC.

It is appropriate for the petitioner to pursue the remedies available under Article 226 and/or section 482 Cr.P.C

11. In these circumstances, before this Court can embark upon an enquiry as to whether the subject FIRs should be quashed, it would be appropriate for him to pursue the remedies available under Article 226 of the Constitution and/or Section 482 CrPC. We are, therefore, not inclined to grant reliefs sought in prayer (a) and (b) of the writ petition.

Law governing Multiple FIRs

Alternative relief – Clubbing of the FIRs

12. In the alternative, the petitioner has prayed for the clubbing and consolidation of the subject FIRs and for a direction that one composite investigation be carried out by a single investigating agency. According to the petitioner, all the FIRs arise out of the same set of allegations and disclose commission of similar offences. It is contended that permitting multiple FIRs and investigations in different jurisdictions viz., Maharashtra, Karnataka and Odisha, would result in multiplicity of proceedings, conflicting findings and serious prejudice to the petitioner.

14. The law governing registration of multiple FIRs is fairly well settled. This Court has consistently held that there cannot be a second FIR in respect of the same incident or occurrence or in respect of the incidents which form a part of the same transaction. At the same time, where the subsequent FIR, inter alia, relates to a distinct occurrence or offence; is a counter-complaint; or reveals a larger conspiracy, the registration of the same is permissible.

“T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala”; “Babubhai v. State of Gujarat”; “Anju Chaudhary v. State of U.P”;

Principle of registering second FIR

14.4. More recently, this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Surendra Singh Rathore, through one of us (Sanjay Karol, J.), referring to the earlier decisions of this Court, summarised the principles regarding the permissibility of the registration of a second FIR, in the following terms:

“9. From the above conspectus of judgments, inter alia, the following principles emerge regarding the permissibility of the registration of a second FIR:

9.1 When the second FIR is counter-complaint or presents a rival version of a set of facts, in reference to which an earlier FIR already stands registered.

9.2 When the ambit of the two FIRs is different even though they may arise from the same set of circumstance es.

9.3 When investigation and/or other avenues reveal the earlier FIR or set of facts to be part of a larger conspiracy.

9.4 When investigation and/or persons related to the incident bring to the light hitherto unknown facts or circumstances.

9.5 Where the incident is separate; offences are similar or different.”

15. A conspectus of the decisions referred to above makes it clear, inter alia, that registration of multiple FIRs is impermissible if they relate to the same incident or form part of the same transaction. However, where the subsequent FIR relates to a distinct offence/incident or a separate transaction, its registration cannot be faulted. The meaning of what constitutes ‘same transaction’ or ‘distinct offence’ has been succinctly explained by this Court in State (NCT of Delhi) v. Khimji Bhai Jadeja17, wherein the Court laid down triple tests, though not to be applied cumulatively, to decide whether separate actions can be treated as part of the ‘same transaction’ – (i) unity of purpose and design; (ii) proximity of time and place; and (iii) continuity of action. The relevant part thereof is reproduced hereunder:

“……………..”

How to appreciate multiple FIRs?

16. Keeping in view the above exposition of law, we are unable to grant the relief of clubbing and consolidation of the subject FIRs, as sought in prayer (c) of the writ petition. In the present case, each of the subject FIRs has been lodged by a different complainant who was allegedly induced to part with money on different occasions but with no live link or connectivity of transactions inter se different set of persons. The mere fact that a part of the defrauded amounts is alleged to have been transferred in the bank account of petitioner’s proprietary concern does not, by itself, establish that all the incidents form part of the same transaction. Though the alleged modus operandi appears to be similar, the victims, the amounts involved, the transactions complained of and the consequences suffered are distinct. Prima facie, therefore, the subject FIRs relate to separate transactions disclosing distinct offences and cannot be said to arise out of the same transaction.

18. We are also mindful of the fact that the investigation is still in its nascent stage. Cyber frauds of the present nature are often executed through complex technological means involving multiple bank accounts, fictitious identities and digital networks operating across different jurisdictions. Investigation into such offences, as rightly contended by the learned counsel(s) for the respondent States, necessarily requires detailed forensic examination of electronic evidence, analysis of banking transactions and tracing of money trails so as to identify the people involved. Given that the investigating agencies are yet to ascertain the complete flow of funds and unravel the entire chain of events, a direction for a composite investigation may impede a fair and effective investigation. Several cyber frauds are now on the rise and the offence, considering its gravity and implications cannot be taken lightly. More so, when the victims of crime largely hailing from the rural areas, unaware and ignorant of the process and the mechanism adopted by the criminals are allured to overcome their poverty.

19. In light of the above, this writ petition is accordingly dismissed. We expressly clarify that liberty is reserved to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum to seek appropriate relief(s) as he may be entitled to in law and/or avail any other remedy as may be available in law, if so advised. All contentions of the parties are left open, which shall be considered by the competent Court on their own merits and in accordance with law.

Resources

Cited Judgments and Principles

• Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras, 1950 SCC 436: Cited regarding the principle that direct exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 32 requires facts disclosing a violation of fundamental rights or compelling circumstances.
• Union of India v. Paul Manickam, (2003) 8 SCC 342: Highlighted that petitioners must show why the High Court was not or could not be approached before directly invoking Article 32.
• Jagisha Arora v. State of U.P., (2019) 6 SCC 619: Addressed exceptional entertainment of petitions under Article 32 in glaring cases of deprivation of liberty despite alternative remedies.
• Sunil Kumar Rai v. State of Bihar, (2024) 17 SCC 592: Referenced in the context of exceptions governing direct resort to Article 32 jurisdiction.
• Arnab Ranjan Goswami v. Union of India, (2020) 14 SCC 12: Held that although an Article 32 petition to quash an FIR is maintainable, petitioners should ordinarily be relegated to the High Court under Section 482 CrPC unless exceptional circumstances exist.
• Amish Devgan v. Union of India, (2021) 1 SCC 1: Considered alongside principles governing the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 32 for quashing criminal proceedings.
• Vinod Dua v. Union of India, (2023) 14 SCC 286: Exercised power under Article 32 to quash an FIR where allegations directly infringed upon fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(a).
• Rajendra Bihari Lal v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2265: Reaffirmed that a writ petition under Article 32 seeking the quashing of an FIR is maintainable where the grievance discloses a violation of a fundamental right.
• T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC 181: Established that no successive or second FIRs can be filed in connection with the same or connected cognizable offence committed in the course of the same transaction.
• Amit Katyal v. State of Haryana, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 890: Referenced alongside the prohibition of fresh investigations based on successive FIRs for the same transaction.
• Babubhai v. State of Gujarat, (2010) 12 SCC 254: Held that the “test of sameness” must be applied to determine whether two FIRs relate to the same incident or form different parts of the same transaction.
• Anju Chaudhary v. State of U.P., (2013) 6 SCC 384: Held that registration of a second FIR is permissible where incidents are separate, offences are similar or different, or the subsequent crime is of a greater magnitude.
• State of Rajasthan v. Surendra Singh Rathore, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 358: Summarized principles regarding the permissibility of registering a second FIR, such as counter-complaints, distinct ambits, or larger conspiracies.
• State (NCT of Delhi) v. Khimji Bhai Jadeja, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 19: Laid down the triple tests (unity of purpose and design, proximity of time and place, and continuity of action) to decide whether separate actions constitute the “same transaction.
• Banwarilal Jhunjhunwala v. Union of India,: Dealt with the interpretation of “every distinct offence” meaning offences that are not identical or inter-related.
• State of Jharkhand through SP, CBI v. Lalu Prasad Yadav, (2024) 17 SCC 592: Observed that a uniform modus operandi does not merge separate offenses into a single transaction if they constitute distinct occurrences.

Acts and Sections Involved

• Constitution of India: Article 19(1)(a), Article 19, Article 21, Article 32, Part III, Article 226, Article 227
• Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): Sections 34, 35, 36, 37, 120B, 170, 384, 389, 417, 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 506
• Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act): Sections 43, 66(C), 66(D)
• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): Sections 154, 155, 156, 157, 162, 169, 170, 173, 173(2), 173(8), 218(1), 219, 482
• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS): Section 242
• The parties involved are Rutvij Bhagat Singh Wakhare versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors., bearing case number Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 127 of 2026 (arising from Criminal Original Jurisdiction), citation 2026 INSC 740, dated July 24, 2026, and adjudicated by a bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Augustine George Masih.

Party

Rutvij Bhagat Singh Wakhare versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors - Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 127 of 2026 (arising from Criminal Original Jurisdiction), - 2026 INSC 740 - July 24, 2026 – Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Augustine George Masih.