INTRODUCTION

In India, the "clubbing of FIRs" refers to the practice of combining multiple First Information Reports into a single case for investigation or trial when they pertain to the same incident, event, or series of related events. A FIR is a written document prepared by the police when they receive information about the commission of a cognizable offense, as per Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) and Section 173 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. Clubbing FIRs is done to streamline the legal process, avoid duplication of efforts, and ensure a cohesive investigation and adjudication. However, In the context of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, which replaced the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, there is no specific provision that explicitly uses the term "clubbing of FIRs." However, the concept of "clubbing" First Information Reports (FIRs)—meaning the consolidation or combining of multiple FIRs related to the same incident or cause of action—falls under the procedural framework governed by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973. 

What Does Clubbing of FIRs Mean?

Clubbing FIRs involves consolidating two or more separate FIRs filed at different police stations or by different complainants into one primary case. This typically happens when:

1. Same Incident, Multiple Complaints: Different individuals file FIRs about the same event. For example, in a riot or a major accident, multiple victims or witnesses might report the incident separately.

2. Cross FIRs: In cases where two parties file complaints against each other arising from the same incident (e.g., a physical altercation where both sides allege assault), these are often clubbed together as "cross-cases."

3. Related Offenses: When multiple FIRs relate to a series of connected crimes, such as a conspiracy or a chain of events involving the same accused persons.

Below two related judgment in this regard-

In the matter of Bank of Rajasthan v. Keshav Bangur, the court determined that although the later FIR pertains to the same crime and is lodged against the same individual as the initial FIR, it can still be valid if it presents a different account of the matter and is submitted by another person. Likewise, reasoning was noted in the situation of P. Sreekumar v. State of Kerala and Others.

In the case of State of Rajasthan v. Bhagwan Das, when several FIRs on the same issue are lodged in various jurisdictions, leading to them being under the authority of different courts, Section 186 of the Code will be applied to safeguard the accused from undue harassment, and orders will be given to halt the proceedings in other courts. 

Legal Basis for Clubbing FIRs

There’s no specific provision in the CrPC that explicitly uses the term "clubbing of FIRs," but the practice is supported by judicial precedents and procedural efficiency principles:

• Section 154 CrPC: Mandates the registration of a FIR for every cognizable offense reported. However, if multiple FIRs arise from the same event, courts or police may decide to treat subsequent FIRs as statements under Section 161 CrPC (witness statements) rather than standalone FIRs.

• Section 210 CrPC: Allows a court to stay proceedings in a case if a police investigation is already underway for the same offense, facilitating consolidation.

• Judicial Discretion: The Supreme Court and High Courts have ruled that clubbing FIRs is permissible to prevent abuse of process and ensure justice. For instance, in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala (2001), the Supreme Court held that a second FIR for the same incident is generally not permissible unless it involves a distinct offense. Subsequent complaints can be clubbed with the first FIR.

Why Clubbing of FIRs is Done?

1. Avoid Redundancy: Multiple FIRs for the same incident can lead to parallel investigations and trials, wasting judicial and police resources.

2. Consistency: Ensures a single, unified investigation and narrative of the case, reducing conflicting findings.

3. Prevent Harassment: Stops the accused from facing multiple proceedings for the same event.

4. Judicial Efficiency: Simplifies trials by consolidating evidence and witnesses.

Process of Clubbing FIRs

• Police Initiative: The police may identify related FIRs during the investigation and seek to club them by transferring subsequent FIRs to the station handling the primary case. This requires approval from a senior officer or magistrate.

• Court Orders: If the police don’t act, a party (complainant or accused) can approach a court (usually a High Court under Section 482 CrPC) to seek clubbing. The court examines the facts to determine if the FIRs stem from the same cause.

• Transfer of Cases: If FIRs are filed in different jurisdictions, they may be transferred to one police station or court under Section 186 CrPC (for cognizable offenses reported in different areas) or through a court order.

Examples of Clubbing FIRs

1. Riots or Public Disturbances: In cases like the 2020 Delhi riots, multiple FIRs filed by victims across different police stations were clubbed for a coordinated probe by agencies like the Delhi Police or CBI.

2. Cross-Complaints: In a domestic dispute where both spouses file FIRs alleging assault, the police or court might club them to resolve the matter holistically.

3. Financial Scams: In large-scale frauds (e.g., the Nirav Modi case), complaints from various victims across cities might be clubbed under one investigating agency like the CBI or ED.

CHALLENGES AND CRITICISMS

• Jurisdictional Issues: Disagreements over which police station or court should handle the clubbed case can delay proceedings.

• Fairness Concerns: Complainants in secondary FIRs might feel their grievances are sidelined if subsumed under a primary FIR.

• Complexity: Clubbing can complicate investigations if the incidents are only loosely related, leading to confusion in evidence handling.

CONDITIONS AND LANDMARK JUDGMENTS

1. Same Incident or Single Transaction

• Condition: FIRs must pertain to the same event or a series of events forming a single continuous transaction.

• Landmark Judgment: T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala (2001) 

  • Ruling: "Multiple FIRs for the same incident are impermissible unless they involve distinct offenses."

  • Significance: Quashed a second FIR, emphasizing a single FIR for one incident to avoid procedural abuse.

2. Common Offence or Closely Related Subject Matter

• Condition: Offenses in the FIRs should be identical or interconnected, making separate trials redundant or contradictory.

• Landmark Judgment: Amish Devgan v. Union of India (2020) 

  • Ruling: "Multiple FIRs across states clubbed for a single trial under Article 142 to prevent harassment."

  • Significance: Unified proceedings for a single TV show incident to ensure fairness.

3. Judicial Convenience and Efficiency

• Condition: Clubbing should save judicial time, reduce costs, and prevent conflicting judgments.

• Landmark Judgment: Radhey Shyam v. State of Haryana (2022) 

  • Ruling: "48 FIRs clubbed into one trial as they arose from the same financial scam."

  • Significance: Promoted efficiency and consistency in adjudication.

4. Court’s Inherent Powers or Consent

• Condition: Clubbing can occur via court’s discretionary powers (Section 482 CrPC or Article 142) or with parties’ consent.

• Landmark Judgment: Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash (2004) 

  • Ruling: "Courts can club related FIRs under inherent powers if justice demands, despite a general bar on second FIRs."

  • Significance: Distinguished from T.T. Antony, allowing flexibility for justice.

5. Jurisdictional Alignment

• Condition: FIRs within the same jurisdiction are easier to club; inter-state clubbing may need higher court intervention.

• Landmark Judgment: Satvinder Kaur v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (1999) 

  • Ruling: "Jurisdictional issues must be resolved before clubbing; case transferred to a single competent court."

  • Significance: Ensured proper jurisdiction for clubbing related matters.

FINANCIAL/ECONOMIC OFFENCES AND CLUBBING OF FIR

While there is no single definitive judgment exclusively dedicated to "clubbing of FIRs in financial cases, however there are some judgment in this regard:

Clubbing of FIRs in Financial Cases/Economic Offences

1. Abhishek Singh Chauhan vs. Union of India (2022 LiveLaw (SC) 608) 

   • Date: July 13, 2022

   • Bench: Justices A.M. Khanwilkar and J.B. Pardiwala

   • Context: The petitioner faced multiple FIRs across states (West Bengal, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, etc.) under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) (e.g., Section 420 for cheating) and various state enactments related to financial frauds, such as the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors Act, 1999, and similar laws in other states.

   • Ruling: The Supreme Court directed state-wise clubbing of FIRs to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, invoking its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution. It emphasized that such consolidation serves the "larger public interest" by preventing redundant trials and conserving judicial resources.

   • Conditions Applied: 

     • The FIRs must relate to offenses committed in the "same transaction" or series of transactions with a common intent (e.g., financial fraud schemes affecting multiple investors).

     • State-wise clubbing was permitted where special courts under state enactments had jurisdiction, rather than a nationwide consolidation, to respect jurisdictional boundaries.

     • The Court clarified that offenses under special laws (e.g., Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002) would proceed separately and not be clubbed with general IPC offenses.

   • Outcome: FIRs in each state were clubbed to be tried together by designated special courts, ensuring efficiency without undermining the legal framework of specialized jurisdictions.

1. Amandeep Singh Sran vs. State of Delhi (2023) 

1. Date: November 24, 2023

2. Bench: Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan

3. Context: The petitioner sought clubbing of 30 FIRs filed across multiple states (Chhattisgarh, Tamil Nadu, Rajasthan, Maharashtra, Delhi, Madhya Pradesh, Haryana) involving financial offenses under IPC and state investor protection laws. The petitioner relied on precedents like Radhey Shyam vs. State of Haryana (where 48 FIRs were clubbed).

4. Ruling: The Supreme Court declined to club all FIRs into one jurisdiction (Delhi) under Article 142, distinguishing this case from prior instances where a single common offense justified nationwide consolidation. Instead, it granted liberty to the petitioner to approach jurisdictional High Courts for state-wise clubbing.

5. Conditions Highlighted: 

   • Clubbing across states is not permissible when FIRs involve distinct offenses under state-specific enactments with designated special courts.

   • The "sameness" of the offense or transaction must be evident; here, the FIRs included varied allegations under different legal frameworks.

   • Multiplicity alone does not warrant clubbing unless it serves judicial economy and fairness without compromising specialized jurisdictions.

6. Outcome: The Court emphasized decentralized relief through High Courts rather than centralized clubbing by the Supreme Court, reflecting a cautious approach in financial cases with diverse legal implications.

1. Radhey Shyam vs. State of Haryana (Referenced in Multiple Cases) 

1. Context: Involved 48 FIRs related to financial fraud, which the Supreme Court clubbed for trial in one jurisdiction.

2. Ruling: The Court exercised its extraordinary powers under Article 142 to consolidate proceedings, citing a single overarching fraudulent scheme.

3. Conditions: 

   • A clear nexus between the FIRs, stemming from a common financial fraud or transaction.

   • Avoidance of conflicting judgments and procedural harassment to the accused.

4. Relevance: Frequently cited as a precedent, but later judgments (e.g., Amandeep Singh Sran) clarified its limited applicability when state-specific laws and courts are involved.

1. Amish Devgan vs. Union of India (2020) (Referenced in Financial Contexts) 

1. Date: December 7, 2020

2. Bench: Justices A.M. Khanwilkar and Sanjiv Khanna

3. Context: While not a financial case, it involved multiple FIRs for a single act (a TV broadcast), and the Court clubbed them into one jurisdiction.

4. Principle Extended: In financial cases, this judgment is often analogized to argue that multiple FIRs arising from a single scheme (e.g., a Ponzi scam) can be clubbed if they share a common factual basis.

5. Conditions: 

   • Unity of purpose or a single incident/transaction triggering multiple complaints.

   • Protection of the accused’s rights under Article 21 against procedural multiplicity.

CONDITIONS FOR CLUBBING FIRS IN FINANCIAL CASES

Based on the above judgments and related judicial principles, the Supreme Court has implicitly or explicitly outlined the following conditions for clubbing FIRs in financial cases:

1. Common Transaction or Series of Transactions: 

   • The FIRs must arise from the same financial scheme, fraud, or transaction (e.g., a single Ponzi scheme affecting multiple victims). This is rooted in Section 220 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which allows joint trials for offenses committed in the same transaction.

1. Judicial Economy and Public Interest: 

1. Clubbing should prevent multiplicity of proceedings, reduce judicial burden, and avoid contradictory rulings, as seen in Abhishek Singh Chauhan. Financial cases often involve large-scale societal impact, making consolidation a practical necessity.

1. Jurisdictional Compatibility: 

1. FIRs can be clubbed state-wise where special courts under state enactments (e.g., investor protection laws) have jurisdiction, but nationwide clubbing is rare unless a single offense dominates (e.g., Radhey Shyam).

1. Nature of Offenses: 

1. Offenses must be sufficiently similar or interconnected. In Amandeep Singh Sran, the Court refused clubbing due to the involvement of distinct state laws alongside IPC provisions, highlighting the need for homogeneity.

1. Avoidance of Prejudice: 

1. Clubbing should not prejudice the accused or the prosecution. The Court balances the accused’s right to a fair trial (Article 21) with the state’s interest in prosecuting economic offenses effectively.

1. Exercise of Discretionary Powers: 

• Article 142: The Supreme Court sparingly invokes its extraordinary powers under Article 142 to order clubbing for a unified trial, as seen in high-stakes financial cases with public ramifications (e.g., Sahara or Rose Valley scams). However, it prefers High Courts to handle such requests under BNSS Section 482 (inherent powers), reserving its intervention for exceptional cases where justice demands a single proceeding.

• BNSS Section 482: Replacing CrPC Section 482, this provision empowers High Courts to club FIRs to prevent abuse of process or secure justice, aligning with the Supreme Court’s preference for decentralized resolution unless national implications arise.

1. Exclusion of Distinct Special Laws: 

1. Offenses under special statutes (e.g., PMLA) typically remain separate from IPC-based FIRs, as seen in Abhishek Singh Chauhan, due to differing procedural requirements and jurisdictions.

1. Relevance to BNS Financial Offenses:

• Financial cases under BNS—such as cheating (Sections 316-318), criminal breach of trust (Section 314), or counterfeiting currency (Section 177)—often involve multiple victims and jurisdictions. The Supreme Court’s principles ensure:

• Efficiency: Clubbing FIRs in a case like a multi-state chit fund scam under BNS Section 318(4) avoids repetitive trials.

• Integrity: Diverse laws (e.g., BNS with RBI regulations) aren’t forcibly merged unless the underlying transaction is identical.

• Public Interest: In cases with widespread economic impact, courts prioritize swift, cohesive adjudication.

ANALYSIS AND APPLICATION IN FINANCIAL CASES

Financial cases, such as those involving cheating (Section 420 IPC), criminal breach of trust (Section 406 IPC), or violations of state investor protection laws, often span multiple jurisdictions due to the widespread impact of economic offenses. The Supreme Court’s approach reflects a balance between:

• Efficiency: Consolidating proceedings to save time and resources.

• Federal Structure: Respecting state-specific legal frameworks and jurisdictions.

• Fairness: Ensuring the accused is not unduly harassed by multiple trials while preserving the prosecution’s ability to address societal harm.

For instance, in cases of large-scale financial scams (e.g., chit fund frauds), the Court may club FIRs within a state if they stem from the same fraudulent entity or scheme, as in Abhishek Singh Chauhan. However, when FIRs involve different legal regimes or unrelated transactions, as in Amandeep Singh Sran, clubbing is denied, and relief is relegated to High Courts.

ONE LINER OF IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS:

• T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala (2001): Multiple FIRs for the same incident are impermissible; only the first FIR should proceed unless distinct offenses are established. 

• Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. CBI (2013): Clubbing of FIRs is justified when they arise from a single transaction to avoid multiplicity and ensure judicial efficiency. 

• Babubhai v. State of Gujarat (2010): Courts can club FIRs under Section 482 CrPC (now BNSS Section 482) if they share a common cause of action, balancing fairness and expediency. 

• Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash (2004): A second FIR is permissible only if it pertains to a separate offense, not a mere continuation of the first, guiding against unnecessary clubbing. 

• Abhishek Singh Chauhan v. State (2023): State-wise consolidation of FIRs in financial frauds is favored when linked to a common scheme, promoting judicial economy. 

• Amandeep Singh Sran v. State (2022): Clubbing is inappropriate when FIRs involve diverse laws or jurisdictions, cautioning against overreach in complex cases. 

• Nathi Devi v. Radha Devi Gupta (2005): Courts may club trials under inherent powers if separate proceedings risk contradictory outcomes, ensuring consistency.

CURRENT SCENARIO 

No landmark 2025 judgment on clubbing FIRs has been finalized by March 21, 2025, within the Supreme Court’s October Term 2024 (October 7, 2024–October 5, 2025). However, ongoing cases like the February 2025 plea by YouTuber Ashish Chanchlani to club FIRs across states for alleged obscenity under BNS provisions indicate the Court’s continued application of these principles. The Supreme Court sought responses from Assam and Maharashtra, suggesting a potential ruling later in 2025 aligning with past conclusions—likely favoring clubbing if a common cause is established, or deferring to High Courts if jurisdictional complexity persists.

ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF CLUBBING FIRS

1. Promotes Judicial Economy 

   • Clubbing FIRs consolidates multiple proceedings into a single trial, reducing the burden on courts, police, and litigants. In financial frauds (e.g., under BNS Section 318 for cheating), where a single scheme may spawn dozens of FIRs across states, separate trials waste resources and delay justice. 

   • Example: In Abhishek Singh Chauhan, state-wise consolidation of FIRs in a complex fraud case streamlined evidence presentation and avoided redundant hearings, saving judicial time.

1. Ensures Consistency in Judgments 

1. Multiple FIRs for the same transaction risk contradictory verdicts, undermining legal certainty. Clubbing ensures one court adjudicates the matter, delivering a uniform ruling.

2. For instance, in a multi-jurisdictional Ponzi scheme under BNS Section 318(4), differing interpretations of evidence across courts could weaken accountability—clubbing prevents this.

1. Prevents Harassment of the Accused 

1. Facing multiple FIRs for the same offense subjects the accused to repetitive investigations and trials, violating fairness principles under Article 21 (right to life and liberty). Clubbing aligns with BNSS Section 482’s mandate to prevent abuse of process.

2. Example: The Supreme Court’s response to Ashish Chanchlani’s plea (February 2025) reflects this concern, aiming to club FIRs to spare the accused undue hardship.

1. Facilitates Efficient Investigation 

1. Police can consolidate evidence, witnesses, and resources under one case diary, enhancing investigative coherence. In financial cases with widespread victims (e.g., fake gold scams), clubbing under BNSS Section 173(3) allows a unified probe across jurisdictions.

2. This avoids fragmented efforts, as seen in large-scale frauds like Sahara, where clubbing aided a cohesive response.

1. Serves Public Interest in Financial Cases 

1. Financial frauds often affect numerous victims and public funds. Clubbing FIRs expedites justice, ensuring quicker recovery of assets or compensation under BNS provisions, aligning with the public ramifications emphasized by the Supreme Court.

ARGUMENT AGAINST CLUBBING FIRS

1. Risks Over-Simplification of Complex Cases 

   • Financial cases may involve distinct offenses or legal frameworks (e.g., BNS Section 316 for cheating alongside PMLA for money laundering). Clubbing risks glossing over these nuances, as cautioned in Amandeep Singh Sran, where diverse laws and jurisdictions warranted separate proceedings.

   • Example: A fraud spanning tax evasion and cheating may require specialized adjudication, not a unified trial.

1. Undermines Jurisdictional Integrity 

1. Each FIR reflects a local complaint and police jurisdiction under BNSS Section 173. Clubbing may centralize cases in one court, sidelining regional authorities and victims’ access to justice, especially if evidence or witnesses are geographically dispersed.

2. For instance, transferring a FIR from Kerala to Delhi could disadvantage Kerala-based victims.

1. Prejudices Complainants’ Rights 

1. Victims filing separate FIRs have a right to pursue their grievances independently. Clubbing might dilute individual claims, particularly if the accused negotiates a plea in a consolidated case, leaving some complainants unaddressed.

2. Example: In a multi-state fraud, a victim in one state might lose leverage if their FIR is subsumed into a distant proceeding.

1. Complicates Evidence and Procedure 

1. Combining FIRs with varying facts, accused, or stages of investigation (e.g., one FIR at trial, another under probe) can confuse proceedings. The Supreme Court in Amandeep Singh Sran warned against clubbing when factual distinctions exist, as it risks procedural chaos.

2. In financial cases, differing victim testimonies or transaction records might be better handled separately.

1. Overreach of Discretionary Powers 

1. Clubbing relies on judicial discretion (BNSS Section 482 or Article 142), which, if exercised broadly, could bypass statutory processes. The Supreme Court’s preference for sparing use of Article 142 reflects this concern—clubbing should not override the natural course of justice unless clearly warranted.

2. Example: Forcing clubbing in a marginally related set of FIRs might infringe on the prosecution’s autonomy.

CONCLUSION

The Supreme Court permits clubbing of FIRs in financial cases under specific conditions: a common transaction, judicial economy, jurisdictional alignment, and fairness. Judgments like Abhishek Singh Chauhan favor state-wise consolidation in complex financial frauds, while Amandeep Singh Sran cautions against overreach when diverse laws and jurisdictions are involved. The Court’s discretionary powers under Article 142 are exercised sparingly, with a preference for High Courts to handle such matters under Section 482 CrPC unless a unified trial is clearly warranted. These principles ensure that financial cases, which often have significant public ramifications, are adjudicated efficiently without compromising legal integrity.

In the matter of Bank of Rajasthan v. Keshav Bangur, the court determined that although the later FIR pertains to the same crime and is lodged against the same individual as the initial FIR, it can still be valid if it presents a different account of the matter and is submitted by another person. Likewise, reasoning was noted in the situation of P. Sreekumar v. State of Kerala and Others.

In the case of State of Rajasthan v. Bhagwan Das, when several FIRs on the same issue are lodged in various jurisdictions, leading to them being under the authority of different courts, Section 186 of the Code will be applied to safeguard the accused from undue harassment, and orders will be given to halt the proceedings in other courts.