SC rejects undertrial’s plea to use its powers to club 30 FIRs arraigned against him across seven States

The apex court said States would have their own designated special courts to try these offences and clubbing FIRs would undermine the jurisdiction of these courts

A Bench headed by Justice B.V. Nagarathna said it could not club FIRs which not only involve offences under the Indian Penal Code but charges under specific State laws. File. | Photo Credit: SHIV KUMAR PUSHPAKAR

The Supreme Court has refused an undertrial’s plea to flex its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to deliver him “complete justice” by clubbing 30 FIRs arraigned against him across seven States.

A Bench headed by Justice B.V. Nagarathna said it could not club FIRs (First Information Reports) which not only involve offences under the Indian Penal Code but charges under specific State laws.

The Supreme Court said States would have their own designated special courts to try these offences. Clubbing FIRs would undermine the jurisdiction of these special courts.

The recent order came in a case of cheating investors in States, including Tamil Nadu, Rajasthan, Haryana, Chhattisgarh, Maharashtra, Delhi and Madhya Pradesh.

The petitioner, Amandeep Singh Saran, has 10 FIRs lodged in Chhattisgarh, four in Tamil Nadu, eight in Rajasthan, two each in Maharashtra and Delhi and three FIRs filed in Madhya Pradesh and one in Haryana.

Though the Bench acknowledged that the apex court could consider clubbing FIRs if the cases registered in different police stations deal with the same offence, it highlighted that the various States have also charged him under their own individual laws.

‘Impermissible in law’

The court agreed with the prosecution that “any clubbing of the FIRs would mean that the jurisdiction of the special courts constituted in each of the States would be taken away and a special jurisdiction would be conferred on one of the courts where the FIRs are to be clubbed to try the offences which arise under the different State enactments… This is impermissible in law,” the order noted.

The Bench, however, gave Saran liberty to approach the High Courts of the respective seven States to seek clubbing of FIRs within that particular State.

“If the trial is commenced in any of the States and as the petitioner [Saran] is now lodged in one of the jails in Chhattisgarh, liberty is reserved to him to appear in the trial through video conferencing facility, if so permitted,” the order said.