RAVINDER SINGH SIDHUversusTHE STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

                 [2025] 5 S.C.R. 2648 : 2025 INSC 727

                         Ravinder Singh Sidhu
                                    v.
                       The State of Punjab & Ors.
                 (Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 394 of 2024)
                                  19 May 2025
            [B.R. Gavai, CJI and K.V. Viswanathan,* J.]


                            Issue for Consideration
       Whether multiple FIRs registered across different States can be
       clubbed and consolidated in one jurisdiction, or at least within one
       district per State, under the Court’s power u/Arts.32 and 142 of
       the Constitution.

                                   Headnotes†
       Constitution of India – Arts.32, 142 – Clubbing and consolidation
       of FIRs – Multiplicity of proceedings – Petition u/Art.32 for
       clubbing and transfer of FIRs in different States – Petitioner
       facing 64 FIRs in 10 States – Similar allegations arising out
       of a common scheme – Writ petition seeking clubbing FIRs
       within the respective States:
       Held: Multiplicity of proceedings not in public interest – Since many
       States have invoked local Acts, particularly the Act dealing with
       the Protection of Interest of Depositors, transferring them out of
       the State also will not serve the ends of justice – Correct course
       of action would be to merge the FIRs with the earliest FIR in the
       State concerned – If the first FIR in the respective States registered
       in respect of offence under the general law and not the special
       enactment, but if the subsequent FIRs now clubbed are registered
       in connection with the special law or registered also in connection
       with the special law, the same after clubbing must be tried under
       the special law by the Special Courts – While the first FIR will be
       treated as the First Information Report the subsequent FIRs in each
       State shall be treated as statements u/s.161 CrPC – Investigating
       Officer in the criminal case arising out of the principal FIR in the
       concerned State will be free to file supplementary chargesheets after
       the collation of all records concerning other FIRs in the concerned
       State which are clubbed in terms of this order – If Police Report
       u/s.173 CrPC stands already filed in the clubbed FIRs and the
       concerned Courts have taken cognizance thereof, said FIRs and
* Author
[2025] 5 S.C.R.                                                              2649

           Ravinder Singh Sidhu v. The State of Punjab & Ors.


     criminal cases would also stand transferred and merged/clubbed
     along with the principal FIR to be proceeded with in accordance
     with law – Supplementary charge-sheets can be filed – Bail in
     principal FIR to apply to others unless distinct charges require
     fresh consideration – Only one FIR each in Chhattisgarh and
     Delhi, hence, not subject to clubbing – Order in exercise of powers
     u/Art.32 read with Art.142 passed. [Paras 10, 19-22]

                              Case Law Cited
     Radhey Shyam v. State of Haryana, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1935;
     Abhishek Singh Chauhan v. Union of India, 2022 SCC OnLine
     SC 1936 – relied on.

                                 List of Acts
     Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Prize Chits
     and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978; Gujarat
     Police Act, 1951; Haryana Protection of Interest of Depositors in
     Financial Establishment Act, 2013; Madhya Pradesh Nikshepakon
     Ke Hiton Ka Sanrakshan Adhiniyam, 2000; Uttarakhand Protection
     of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 2005.

                              List of Keywords
     Clubbed FIRs; Multiplicity of proceedings; Jurisdictional
     consolidation; Public interest; Criminal trial; Bail; Merging of FIRs;
     Principal FIR; General law; Special law; Multiple FIRs.

                             Case Arising From
     CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Criminal)
     No. 394 of 2024
     Under Article 32 of The Constitution of India

                         Appearances for Parties
     Advs. for the Petitioner:
     Shyam Mehta, Sr. Adv., Mohit Paul, Ms. Rangoli Seth, Varad
     Kilor, Rohit.
     Advs. for the Respondents:
     Amit Sharma, Ms. Manisha Aggarwal, A.A.Gs., Siddhant Sharma,
     Yashraj Singh Bundela, Ms. Saloni, Arpit Garg, Dhruv Sharma,
     Akshay Amritanshu, Ms. Drishti Rawal, Ms. Pragya Upadhyay, Ms.
2650                                                        [2025] 5 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


     Drishti Saraf, Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, Ms. Abhipsa Mohanty, Mukesh
     Kumar Maroria, Bhuvan Kapoor, Anuj Udupa, Sharath Nambiar,
     Ms. Alabhaya Dhamija, Sudarshan Singh Rawat, Ms. Saakshi
     Singh Rawat, Ajay Kumar Bahuguna, Saurabh Rajpal, Vinay Kumar
     Singh, Arpit Bamal, Ashzad Mubarak, Ms. Nidhi Jaswal, Pradeep
     Misra, Daleep Dhyani, Suraj Singh.

                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                Judgment

     K.V. Viswanathan, J.

1.   The present Writ Petition has been filed seeking to issue an
     appropriate writ, order or direction for clubbing and transferring
     the multiple First Information Reports (FIRs) registered against the
     petitioner in different States to the Court of competent jurisdiction at
     Panchkula, Haryana. Though this is the prayer made in the petition,
     learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner states that he would only
     press for consolidation of the multiple FIRs in each of the States to
     one district within the respective States. It should also be noticed
     that as far as the original prayer made in the petition is concerned,
     on facts, it was clearly not maintainable since a similar prayer made
     by the petitioner in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 206 of 2020 filed in
     this Court on 20.07.2020 was rejected on 17.08.2020. Considering
     the fact that the petitioner is now seeking the alternative prayer and
     the respective States during the hearing have not objected to the
     same, we have decided to entertain the petition in the special facts
     and circumstances of the case.
2.   In all, there are 64 FIRs registered in 10 States. The States
     concerned which are parties to the writ petition are Punjab (23
     FIRs), Madhya Pradesh (2 FIRs), Haryana (6 FIRs), Gujarat (4
     FIRs), Chhattisgarh (1 FIR), NCT of Delhi (1 FIR), Uttarakhand (5
     FIRs), Rajasthan (5 FIRs), Uttar Pradesh (15 FIRs) and Himachal
     Pradesh (2 FIRs).
3.   It should also be mentioned that, out of the above, already trial is
     concluded in some and in three cases convictions have been recorded.
     In two cases acquittals have been recorded, in two cases there have
     been cancellation reports, 15 cases are at the evidence stage and 21
[2025] 5 S.C.R.                                                       2651

           Ravinder Singh Sidhu v. The State of Punjab & Ors.


     cases are at the stage where charge-sheets have been filed. We are
     not concerned with the cases where convictions or acquittals have
     been recorded or in some cases where cancellation reports are filed.
4.   The different FIRs are primarily for offences under Sections 406,
     420, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120B, 34, 263, 114 of the
     Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). Some of the Sections referred to
     herein have been invoked in a few FIRs and in some all the Sections
     have been invoked. Along with this in some FIRs the local Acts of
     the State like the Gujarat Police Act, 1951, the Haryana Protection
     of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishment Act, 2013, the
     Prize Chits And Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978, the
     Madhya Pradesh Nikshepakon Ke Hiton Ka Sanrakshan Adhiniyam,
     2000 and the Uttarakhand Protection of Interests of Depositors (in
     Financial Establishments) Act, 2005 have been invoked depending
     upon the State concerned.
5.   The petitioner herein Ravinder Singh Sidhu has been in custody since
     11.10.2018. He was the Managing Director of KIM Infrastructure and
     Developers Limited (for short ‘KIDL’). The petitioner along with other
     directors is alleged to have floated two schemes for allotment of
     developed land where customers were lured to be part of a lumpsum
     payment plan or a deferred payment plan.
6.   When the matters stood thus, Writ Petition No. 3332 of 2010 was
     filed before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at its Gwalior Bench
     for inquiry against financial companies including ‘KIDL’, on the ground
     that the companies were seeking deposits from the public with
     promise of repayment with higher returns ranging from 15 to 20 per
     cent. The High Court ordered an inquiry by the Central Bureau of
     Investigation (CBI). The CBI conducted a preliminary investigation
     and submitted a report concluding that many of the named companies
     indulged in profiteering schemes without even having the capacity
     to repay along with the promised rate of return.
7.   On 13.07.2012, the Writ Petition was disposed of by the High Court
     with a direction to the concerned authorities to take appropriate action
     in accordance with law. Pursuant thereto, the Securities and Exchange
     Board of India (SEBI) initiated inquiry against ‘KIDL’. KIDL’s attempt
     to get the scheme registered as a Collective Investment Scheme
     (CIS) was rejected on the ground that possessing a registration
     was a pre-condition for initiating/launching/sponsoring (CIS) under
2652                                                         [2025] 5 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


     the SEBI Act, 1992. Certain proceedings were taken by SEBI with
     which we are not directly concerned here.
8.   In the meantime, the first FIR came to be registered against KIDL
     and its directors by investors as well as by agents appointed by KIDL
     for mobilizing the investment money. As stated earlier, multiple FIRs
     came to be registered alleging commission of diverse offences due
     to default in honoring the commitments and due to failure of KIDL
     and the petitioner to repay the amounts. It is in this background that
     the present Writ Petition came to be filed.
9.   Notices were issued in the Writ Petition and the States of
     Uttarakhand, Punjab, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Gujarat and
     Uttar Pradesh have filed counter affidavits. Though in the counter
     affidavits, the States have opposed the clubbing, at the hearing
     there was a broad consensus about consolidating the cases in the
     respective States.
10. Heard learned Senior Counsel/Counsel for the parties. The law in
    this issue is now fairly well settled. It has been held by this Court
    that multiplicity of proceedings will not be in larger public interest.
    Further, since many States have invoked local Acts, particularly the
    Act dealing with the Protection of Interest of Depositors, transferring
    them out of the State also will not serve the ends of justice. Hence,
    the correct course of action would be to merge the FIRs with the
    earliest FIR in the State concerned. It is clarified that if the first FIR
    in the respective States of Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh,
    Madhya Pradesh, Punjab, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand
    is registered in respect of offence under the general law and not
    the special enactment, but if the subsequent FIRs now clubbed are
    registered in connection with the special law or registered also in
    connection with the special law, the same after clubbing must be
    tried under the special law by the Special Court(s). [See Radhey
    Shyam v. State of Haryana and Ors., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1935
    and Abhishek Singh Chauhan v. Union of India and Ors., 2022
    SCC OnLine SC 1936].
11. We propose to follow the said course of action. In view of the above
    in the State of Gujarat, the following 3 FIRs will now be merged
    with FIR No. I-79/2018 dated 27.09.2018 registered at Bhavnagar
    Gangajaliya.
[2025] 5 S.C.R.                                                        2653

            Ravinder Singh Sidhu v. The State of Punjab & Ors.



      Sr.     FIR No.      Date         Police            Place
      No.                               Station

      1.      I-92/2018    26.11.2018                     Bhavnagar
                                                          Gangajaliya

      2.      I-293/2018   18.11.2018   P.S. Vadaj        Ahmedabad City

      3.      I-285/2018   14.11.2018   P.S. Vadaj        Ahmedabad City

12. In the State of Haryana, the following 5 FIRs will now be merged
    with FIR No. 24/2018 dated 16.01.2018 registered at Ambala P.S.
    Ambala Cant.

      Sr.     FIR No.      Date           Police Station      Place
      No.

      1.      98/2019      04.04.2019     Bhiwani Civil       Bhiwani
                                          Lines

      2.      167/2022     01.08.2022     Raipur Rani         Panchkula

      3.      235/2021     21.05.2021     Hisar City          Hisar

      4.      1015/2018    09.10.2018     Sirsa City          Sirsa

      5.      503/2019     NA             Narnaul             Narnaul
              COMI No.
              110/2020)

13. In the State of Himachal Pradesh, the following FIR will now be
    merged with FIR No. 13/2019 registered at Hamirpur, P.S. Sujanpur
    Tira.

      Sr.     FIR No.      Date         Police Station      Place
      No.

      1.      202/2019     09.12.2019   Jawali              Kangra

14. In the State of Madhya Pradesh, the following FIR will now be
    merged with FIR No. 496/2018 dated 05.12.2018 registered at
    Jabalpur P.S. Lordganj.
2654                                                       [2025] 5 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports



        Sr.   FIR No.     Date           Police Station     Place
        No.
        1.    176/2020    24.05.2020     Kotwali Anuppur    Anuppur

15. In the State of Punjab, the following 16 FIRs will now be merged
    with FIR No. 198/2018 dated 23.10.2018 registered at SAS Nagar,
    P.S. Phase I.

        Sr.   FIR No.       Date          Police Station     Place
        No.

        1.    183/2020      12.08.2020    Dasuya             Hoshiarpur

        2.    62/2021       21.04.2021    Dasuya             Hoshiarpur

        3.    291/2020      16.12.2020    Dasuya             Hoshiarpur

        4.    81/2021       21.04.2021    City Gurdaspur     Gurdaspur

        5.    151/2021      04.08.2021    City Hoshiarpur    Hoshiarpur

        6.    280/2020      12.12.2020    City Hoshiarpur    Hoshiarpur

        7.    30/2022       04.03.2022    Anaj Mandi         Patiala

        8.    55/2021       23.05.2021    Talwara            Hoshiarpur

        9.    99/2021       20.05.2021    Talwara            Hoshiarpur

        10.   64/2021       20.05.2021    City Batala        Batala
                                                             (Gurdaspur)

        11.   141/2019      02.09.2019    City Gurdaspur     Gurdaspur
                                                             P.S.

        12.   0043/2019     12.02.2019    City Tarn Taran    Tarn Taran

        13.   07/2021       16.01.2021                       City
                                                             Hoshiarpur

        14.   53/2021       29.03.2021                       City
                                                             Hoshiarpur

        15.   05/2024       06.03.2024    N.R.I.             Amritsar

        16.   144/2024      29.10.2024    Kotwali            Bathinda
[2025] 5 S.C.R.                                                            2655

            Ravinder Singh Sidhu v. The State of Punjab & Ors.


16. In the State of Rajasthan, the following 3 FIRs will now be merged
    with FIR No. 878/2018 dated 20.11.2018 registered at Karauli P.S.
    Hindon.

      Sr. FIR No.        Date            Police Station       Place
      No.
      1.     125/2019    06.06.2019      Tibbi                Hanumangarh

      2.     90/2019     12.03.2019      Bhupalpura           Udaipur
      3.     292/2019    05.08.2019      Vidhayakpuri         Jaipur City
                                                              (South)

17. In the State of Uttar Pradesh, the following 14 FIRs will now be
    merged with FIR No. 28/2019 dated 13.01.2019 registered at Basti
    P.S. Kotwali.

      Sr. FIR No.       Date          Police       Place
      No.                             Station
      1.     82/2019    09.02.2019 Hari Parvat     Agra
      2.     303/2019 25.06.2019 Aonla             Bareilly
      3.     617/2020 25.12.2020 Nawabad           Jhansi
      4.     33/2019    15.03.2019 Harbans         East (Commissionerate
                                   Mohal           Kanpur City)
      5.     55/2019    11.05.2019    Harbans      East (Commissionerate
                                      Mohal        Kanpur City)
      6.     57/2019    14.05.2019 Harbans         East (Commissionerate
                                   Mohal           Kanpur City)
      7.     480/2020                 Sungarhi     Pilibhit
      8.     409/2019                 Sungarhi     Pilibhit
      9.     119/2019 15.02.2019 Sigra             Kashi
                                                   (Commissionerate
                                                   Varanasi)
      10.    189/2019 29.05.2019 Bhadohi           Bhadohi
      11.    406/2019 19.05.2019 Cantt             Gorakhpur
      12.    361/2019 18.06.2019 Sigra             Varanasi
      13.    463/2019 23.10.2019 Sigra             Varanasi
      14.    280/2022                 Bareilly     Faridpur
2656                                                        [2025] 5 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


18. In the State of Uttarakhand, the following 4 FIRs will now be merged
    with FIR No. 107/2018 dated 30.10.2018 registered at Pithoragarh
    P.S. Kotwali Pithoragarh.

        Sr.   FIR No.     Date           Police Station    Place
        No.
        1.    165/2019    24.08.2019     Mukhani           Nainital
        2.    30/2019     07.07.2019     Lohaghat          Champawat
        3.    44/2019     19.02.2019     Jaspur            Udham Singh
                                                           Nagar
        4.    86/2024     24.04.2024                       Mukhani
                                                           Nainital

19. The writ petition stands allowed in the above terms. We further
    direct while the first FIR will be treated as the First Information
    Report (hereinafter for convenience called the ‘principal FIR’), the
    subsequent FIRs in each State shall be treated as Statements under
    Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). The
    Investigating Officer in the criminal case arising out of the principal
    FIR in the concerned State will be free to file supplementary charge-
    sheets after the collation of all records concerning other FIRs in
    the concerned State which are clubbed in terms of this order. We
    further direct that if Police Report under Section 173 of CrPC stands
    already filed in the clubbed FIRs and the concerned Courts have
    taken cognizance thereof, the said FIRs and criminal cases would
    also stand transferred and merged/clubbed along with the principal
    FIR to be proceeded with in accordance with law.
20. The investigating officer in the principal proceedings will be free to
    file supplementary charge-sheet on the basis of the material collated
    during investigation of other FIRs. We also make it clear that the
    other offences not part of the special enactments can also be tried
    by the Special Court under the concerned State legislation. We
    also further direct that in case the petitioner has been granted bail
    in connection with the principal proceeding/criminal case to which
    the other cases have been clubbed, the bail so granted must enure
    to the petitioner’s favour in the other FIRs now clubbed as well. We
    further clarify that if the principal FIR is limited to offence under the
    general law/Penal Code but the subsequent FIRs contain allegations
[2025] 5 S.C.R.                                                          2657

              Ravinder Singh Sidhu v. The State of Punjab & Ors.


     attracting offences under the special enactment or certain other IPC
     offences and if the bail granted is only for some offences under the
     general law, the Special Court is entitled to insist for a fresh bail
     application to be filed by the petitioner in relation to those offences
     including under the Special Act. The said bail application(s) shall be
     decided on its own merits in accordance with law.
21. We make it clear that our direction is confined to the offences
    mentioned in the present order, namely, the offences under the IPC
    and the concerned State enactment mentioned herein.
22. As far as the State of Chhattisgarh and NCT of Delhi are concerned,
    since there is only one case each, the said case will proceed in
    those States in accordance with law and the question of clubbing
    does not arise. We have passed the above order in exercise of
    powers under Article 32 read with our powers under Article 142 of
    the Constitution of India.

     Result of the case: Writ Petition allowed.




     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Aishani Narain, Hony. Associate Editor
                                 (Verified by: Nidhi Jain, Editor)