Supreme Court Consolidates Multiple FIRs in Madhya Pradesh: Amanat Ali vs. State of Karnataka (2023)

Date of the Judgment: 11 December 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 1060

Judges: B.R. Gavai, J. and Aravind Kumar, J.

Can multiple criminal cases against the same person, for similar offences, be consolidated and tried in one location? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent judgment, focusing on whether to consolidate multiple FIRs filed against the petitioner in different states. The Court considered the petitioner’s plea to consolidate the FIRs registered in Madhya Pradesh, Karnataka, and Jharkhand, for similar offences, to be tried in one court in Madhya Pradesh. The bench, comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and Aravind Kumar, delivered the judgment.

Case Background

The petitioner, Amanat Ali, faced multiple FIRs across Madhya Pradesh, Karnataka, and Jharkhand, all related to alleged fraud and scams. The petitioner contended that he was not a director of the company involved, G. Life India Developers and Colonizers Limited, and thus, was not involved in the alleged crimes. He argued that to ensure a fair and speedy trial, all cases should be consolidated and transferred to a court in Guna, Madhya Pradesh, where one of the FIRs was already pending. The petitioner sought relief from the Supreme Court to consolidate the FIRs to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The petitioner approached the Supreme Court seeking consolidation of multiple FIRs registered against him in different states. The petitioner argued that the cases were related to the same alleged fraud and should be tried together in one court to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. The respondents, representing the states of Karnataka and Jharkhand, opposed the plea, stating that the complainants and witnesses were different in each case and they could not be penalized by making them travel to Madhya Pradesh for the trial. The Supreme Court considered the arguments of both sides and the facts of the case.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily relies on the inherent powers of the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, which allows the court to pass any order necessary to do complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The Court also referred to the principles laid down in Amish Devgan v. Union of India and others (2021) 1 SCC 1, which discussed the consolidation of FIRs to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and ensure a fair trial.

Article 142 of the Constitution of India states:

“142. Enforcement of decrees and orders of Supreme Court and orders as to discovery, etc. (1) The Supreme Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it, and any decree so passed or order so made shall be enforceable throughout the territory of India in such manner as may be prescribed by or under any law made by Parliament and, until provision in that behalf is so made, in such manner as the President may by order prescribe. (2) Subject to the provisions of any law made in this behalf by Parliament, the Supreme Court shall, as respects the whole of the territory of India, have all and every power to make any order for the purpose of securing the attendance of any person, the discovery or production of any documents, or the investigation or punishment of any contempt of itself.”

Arguments

Petitioner’s Arguments:

• The petitioner, aged 60, was implicated in multiple cases across Madhya Pradesh, Karnataka, and Jharkhand for similar offences.
• The petitioner was not a director of G. Life India Developers and Colonizers Limited and had no involvement in the alleged fraud.
• To ensure a speedy and fair trial and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, all cases should be consolidated and transferred to a court in Guna, Madhya Pradesh.
• The petitioner relied on the judgments in Satinder Singh Bhasin v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., Amish Devgan vs. Union of India & Ors, and Abhishek Singh Chauhan v. Union of India & Ors. to support his plea for consolidation.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The complainants and witnesses were different in each case.
• It would be unfair to penalize the complainants by making them travel from Karnataka and Jharkhand to Madhya Pradesh for the trial.
• Each case was registered by the jurisdictional police based on individual causes of action.
• Transferring all cases to one court was not appropriate.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues, but the core issue was:

• Whether the FIRs registered against the petitioner in different states for similar offences should be consolidated and transferred to one court for a joint trial.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court relied on Amish Devgan v. Union of India and others (2021) 1 SCC 1* to consolidate the FIRs registered in the State of Madhya Pradesh.
• The Court exercised its power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India* to order the consolidation of the FIRs in Madhya Pradesh.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to consolidate the FIRs within Madhya Pradesh was driven by several factors. The Court aimed to prevent the multiplicity of proceedings and ensure a fair trial by consolidating the cases in one location. However, the Court also considered the inconvenience to the complainants and witnesses in the cases registered outside Madhya Pradesh. The Court balanced the need for judicial efficiency with the rights of the complainants to ensure justice.

The Court’s reasoning was that:

• Consolidating the FIRs within Madhya Pradesh would avoid multiplicity of proceedings and be in the larger public interest.
• The complainants and witnesses in Karnataka and Jharkhand would be inconvenienced if the cases were transferred to Madhya Pradesh.
• The Court has the power under Article 142 of the Constitution to pass orders necessary for doing complete justice.

The Court stated, “we deem it appropriate to exercise power conferred under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to accede to the relief claimed to the extent of consolidation of the FIRs registered in the State of Madhya Pradesh for being tried together as one trial as far as possible, as we are of the opinion that multiplicity of the proceedings will not be in the larger public interest and State also.”

The Court also clarified, “It is clarified that all the cases pending in the State of Madhya Pradesh shall be transferred to the District of Devas, Madhya Pradesh where FIR No.324 of 2017 has been filed and registered against the petitioner or in other words, FIR Nos.266 of 2018, 479 of 2018 and 283 of 2020 shall stand transferred to the District of Devas where FIR No.324 of 2017 is pending.”

The Court also stated, “The prayer for transfer of the cases pending in the States of Karnataka and Jharkhand to the State of Madhya Pradesh stands rejected.”

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court has the power to consolidate FIRs to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and ensure a fair trial.
• The Court considers the convenience of all parties, including complainants and witnesses, when deciding on the transfer of cases.
• The Court’s power under Article 142 of the Constitution is used to ensure complete justice.
• The judgment provides a precedent for consolidating cases within a state, but not necessarily across different states, unless there are compelling reasons.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that all cases pending in the State of Madhya Pradesh shall be transferred to the District of Devas, Madhya Pradesh, where FIR No. 324 of 2017 is pending. The jurisdictional courts were directed to take immediate steps to consolidate the proceedings and adjudicate them in one trial.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that the Supreme Court can exercise its power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to consolidate FIRs within a state to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and ensure a fair trial. This judgment reinforces the existing legal principles regarding the consolidation of FIRs and provides a clear direction for lower courts to follow in similar cases.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Amanat Ali vs. State of Karnataka provides clarity on the issue of consolidating multiple FIRs for similar offences. The Court partially allowed the petitioner’s plea, consolidating the FIRs within Madhya Pradesh while rejecting the transfer of cases from Karnataka and Jharkhand. This decision balances the need for judicial efficiency with the rights of all parties involved, ensuring a fair and speedy trial.