Supreme Court upholds single FIR in mass cheating cases arising from one conspiracy involving multiple investors.
Case in News
The Supreme Court upheld Single FIR In Mass Cheating Cases arising from one conspiracy involving multiple investors .
Discover powerful Latin Maxims and simplify complex legal terms in seconds.
Case Name
The State (NCT of Delhi) v. Khimji Bhai Jadeja
Case Overview
In The State (NCT of Delhi) v. Khimji Bhai Jadeja, the Supreme Court examined whether multiple FIRs are mandatory when numerous victims are cheated pursuant to a single criminal conspiracy . The matter was heard by a Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Alok Aradhe . The appeal challenged a 2019 Delhi High Court ruling that required separate FIRs for each investor allegedly cheated in a large-scale fraud investigated by the Economic Offences Wing, Delhi .
Step into the world of justice withCourtroom Chronicles
Key Aspects
The dispute arose from FIR No. 89 of 2009, registered against the accused for cheating investors by falsely promising to triple money using divine powers . The issue was whether such acts constituted separate transactions or one continuing conspiracy .
- FIR alleged cheating of 1,852 investors involving approximately ₹46.40 crore .
- Police registered one FIR, treating other complaints as statements under Section 161 CrPC .
- Trial court referred questions to the High Court under Section 395(2) CrPC .
- Delhi High Court mandated separate FIRs and charge sheets for each investor .
Legal Insights
The Supreme Court analysed statutory provisions governing investigation, conspiracy and joinder of charges . It emphasised that procedural rigidity cannot override settled criminal law principles .
- Section 161 CrPC (Section 179 BNSS) permits recording of victim statements during investigation .
- Sections 220 and 223 CrPC (Sections 242 and 243 BNSS) allow joint trial when offences form part of the same transaction .
- Section 120B IPC (Section 61 BNS) recognises criminal conspiracy as a continuing offence .
- Sentencing concerns are governed by Section 71 IPC and Section 31 CrPC (Sections 5 BNS and 23 BNSS), not FIR registration .
Court’s Verdict
The Supreme Court set aside the Delhi High Court’s view, holding that registration of a single FIR is permissible where a common conspiracy results in cheating of multiple victims . It ruled that whether acts form the “same transaction” can only be assessed after investigation, using established tests of unity of purpose, proximity and continuity . The Court clarified that victims are not remediless and may file protest petitions if aggrieved . Consolidation or separation of charges must be decided by the trial court at the stage of framing of charges .
The LawGist ensures exam success with quality notes—TPL, Current Affairs, Recent Judgments, and more. Backed by trusted resources and videos, The LawGist is every aspirant’s first choice.
Read also-BNS
Source-Supreme Court of India
