2026 INSC 25 1

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. ................. OF 2026

(@ Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 9198 of 2019)

The State (NCT) of Delhi … Appellant

versus

Khimji Bhai Jadeja …Respondent

J U D G M E N T

SANJAY KUMAR, J

1. Leave granted.

2. The State (NCT) of Delhi is aggrieved by the judgment dated

08.07.2019, whereby a Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi

answered Criminal Reference No. 1 of 2014. By the said reference, the

learned Additional District & Sessions Judge – II, North-West District,

Rohini Courts, Delhi

1

, had referred three questions of law to the High

Court of Delhi for its decision, under Section 395(2) of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973

2

. The questions read as under: -

1

For short, ‘Additional Sessions Judge’

2

For short, ‘CrPC’

2

‘a. Whether in a case of inducement, allurement and cheating

of large number of investors/depositors in pursuance to a

criminal conspiracy, each deposit by an investor constitutes a

separate and individual transaction or all such transactions can

be amalgamated and clubbed into a single FIR by showing one

investor as complainant and others as witnesses?

b. If in case the Hon'ble Court concludes that each deposit has

to be treated as separate transaction, then how many such

transactions can be amalgamated into one charge sheet?

(Note: - As per the provisions of Section 219 CrPC and as

observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Narinderjit

Singh Sahni & anr. vs. Union of India & ors., only three

transactions in a particular year can be clubbed in a single

charge sheet).

c. Whether under the given circumstances the concept of

maximum punishment of seven years for a single offence can

be pressed into service by the accused by clubbing and

amalgamating all the transactions into one FIR with maximum

punishment of seven years?

(Note: - If this is done, this would be in violation of concept of

Proportionality of Punishment as provided in the Code of

Criminal Procedure. In the case of Narinderjit Singh Sahni vs.

Union of India & ors., it has been observed by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court that this cannot be done but in case if we go

by the ratio laid down by the Delhi High Court in the case of

State vs. Ramesh Chand Kapoor this is possible. Hence, this

aspect requires an authoritative pronouncement by a larger

Bench).’

3. The Division Bench answered the questions as follows: -

‘…. Thus, our answer to Question (a) is that in a case of

inducement, allurement and cheating of large number of

investors/depositors in pursuance to a criminal conspiracy,

each deposit by an investor constitutes a separate and

3

individual transaction. All such transactions cannot be

amalgamated and clubbed into a single FIR by showing one

investor as the complainant and others as witnesses. In

respect of each such transaction, it is imperative for the State

to register a separate FIR if the complainant discloses

commission of a cognizable offence.

…. Thus, our answer to question (b) is that in respect of each

FIR, a separate final report (and wherever necessary

supplementary/further charge sheet(s)) have to be filed, and

there is no question of amalgamation of the final reports that

may be filed in respect of different FIRs. The amalgamation,

strictly in terms of Section 219 Cr.P.C., would be considered by

the Court/ Magistrate at the stage of framing of charge, since

Section 219(1) mandates that where the requirements set out

in the said Section are met, the accused "may be charged with,

and tried at one trial for, any number of them not exceeding

three".

…. In our view, the aforesaid question [sic, (c)] does not survive

in view of the answer to question (a) and (b). It would be for

the Trial Court to consider the sentence to which the convict

may be subjected as per law, keeping in view the well settled

principles of sentencing. In this regard, we may only refer to

Section 31 of the Cr.P.C. which, inter alia, provides that when

a person is convicted at one trial of two or more offences, the

Court, may subject to the provisions of Section 71 IPC,

sentence him for such offences to the several punishments

prescribed therefore which such Court is competent to inflict. It

further provides that such punishments, which consist of

imprisonment, would commence one after the expiration of the

other, unless the Court directs that such punishments shall run

concurrently. The limitation on the quantum of sentence is

prescribed by sub-section 2 of Section 31 of the Cr.P.C., but

the same would apply in respect of convictions at one trial of

two or more offences. However, where the trials are multiple,

which result into multiple convictions, the proviso to Section 31

(2) would have no application.’

4

4. The State filed the present appeal assailing these answers. By order

dated 25.11.2019, this Court stayed the operation of the impugned

judgment. Mr. R. Basant, learned senior counsel, was requested to assist

the Court as an amicus curiae. Despite service of notice, Khimji Bhai

Jadeja, the respondent, did not enter appearance before this Court.

5. The reference by the learned Additional Sessions Judge arose in

the context of FIR No. 89 of 2009 registered on 01.06.2009 by the

Economic Offences Wing of the Delhi Police under Sections 420 and

120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

3

, at the behest of one Rajesh Kumar.

His complaint was that Ashok Jadeja and his accomplices, one of whom

was Khimji Bhai Jadeja, the respondent herein, had falsely represented

that Ashok Jadeja was blessed with the divine power of Sikotar Mata to

triple money in a few days. A large number of people were stated to have

been induced to invest their monies and were ultimately duped. During

the investigation into this complaint, it was found that altogether 1,852

victims had been cheated of their monies, to the tune of ₹46.40 crores.

The other 1851 complaints were clubbed with FIR No. 89 of 2009 and

those complainants were made witnesses by treating their complaints as

statements. On 09.02.2014, the Delhi Police filed a charge sheet against

15 persons. Six more supplementary charge sheets came to be filed

3

For short, ‘IPC’

5

between 2014 and 2025. Meanwhile, when Khimji Bhai Jadeja, the

respondent herein, filed a petition in 2014 seeking bail, the learned

Additional Sessions Judge framed the aforestated three questions of law,

vide order dated 14.03.2014, and referred them to the High Court for

appropriate decision under Section 395(2) CrPC, leading to that reference

being answered by way of the impugned judgment.

6. The Division Bench of the High Court was of the opinion that

registering a single FIR and treating the other complainants as witnesses

would result in deprivation of the rights of such complainants to pursue

their individual complaints. The Bench conceded that they could, at the

most, be treated as witnesses to establish the criminal conspiracy, but

treating them only as witnesses would deprive them of the right to file

protest petitions in the event a closure report was filed by the police in the

sole FIR that was registered or if the Magistrate concerned did not accept

the final report and discharged the accused. It was on this basis that the

Division Bench answered question (a) by concluding that such complaints

could not be amalgamated into one FIR by treating all such complainants

as witnesses therein. Apropos question (b), the Bench opined that the

police could not club separate offences investigated under separate FIRs

into one final report and that a separate final report had to be filed in

relation to each FIR. Referring to Section 219 CrPC, the Bench opined

that amalgamation thereunder could be considered by the Magistrate

6

concerned at the stage of framing of charges, upto a maximum of three.

As regards question (c), the Bench opined that it would be for the Trial

Court to consider the sentence that could be imposed on a convicted

accused in accordance with the well-settled principles of sentencing and

the legal provisions relevant thereto.

7. The learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing for the

appellant-State, would contend that a conspiracy to procure deposits from

several persons so as to dupe them would be a ‘single transaction’,

irrespective of the number of people defrauded and each such transaction

ought not to be treated as a separate offence, requiring an individual FIR

to be registered therefor. She would argue that clubbing of FIRs is

permissible in law and that requiring individual FIRs to be registered in a

case of this nature would be cumbersome and wholly unnecessary. She

would point out that the statute provides for charges being consolidated

against multiple persons for multiple offences, if such offences form part

of the same transaction. Reliance is placed upon State of Andhra

Pradesh vs. Cheemalapati Ganeswara Rao and another

4

, wherein this

Court observed thus: “where several acts committed by a person show a

unity of purpose or design, that would be a strong circumstance to indicate

that those acts form part of the same transaction.” She would argue that

4

AIR 1963 SC 1850 = (1964) 3 SCR 297

7

the acts of the accused persons in the case on hand also constitute a

‘single transaction’, justifying the clubbing of all the complaints with the

first FIR. Lastly, she would assert that requiring registration of individual

FIRs for each such complaint would lead to multiplicity of proceedings,

which would be violative of public policy, and would also increase the

burden upon the prosecution as well as the judiciary.

8. Mr. R. Basant, learned amicus curiae, made detailed submissions

on all aspects of the matter. He would state that the reference itself was

premature, as the investigation was still pending and the police were yet

to determine whether all the alleged acts of cheating were part of the same

transaction, falling within the ambit of Section 220(1) CrPC and Section

223(a) and (d) CrPC. He would further state that, perusal of the allegations

in FIR No. 89 of 2009 manifests that a single conspiracy was alleged and,

therefore, the course adopted by the Delhi Police in registering one single

FIR was appropriate. He would point out that even if multiple FIRs had

been registered, consolidation of such FIRs is permissible in law, as was

pointed out by this Court time and again. He would submit that no

exception could be taken to the registration of one FIR and treating the

complaints of the other victims as part of the investigation in the said FIR.

Referring to the charge sheets filed by the Delhi Police in the present case,

the learned amicus would point out that general allegations were made

therein that a criminal conspiracy was hatched, thereby attracting Section

8

120B IPC. In summation, he would submit that the answers by the Division

Bench of the High Court to questions (a) and (b) are incorrect. He would

assert that, as to whether consolidation of charges can be effected or not

is a question that would arise for consideration only at the stage of framing

of charges and if the alleged offences formed part of the same transaction,

whatever be the number of complainants, such consolidation is

permissible under the provisions of the statute and, if not, separate

charges would have to be framed, subject to Section 219 CrPC.

9. The issue, therefore, boils down to whether or not the offences

allegedly committed against the 1,852 complainants were part of the

‘same transaction’. We may first note the case law that has developed

over time on the issue of consolidation of FIRs. In S. Swamirathnam vs.

State of Madras

5

, a 3-Judge Bench of this Court rejected the contention

of the accused that there was misjoinder of charges as several

conspiracies, distinct from each other, had been lumped together and tried

at one trial. The Bench observed that the charges, as framed, disclosed

one single conspiracy spread over several years and the only object of

the conspiracy was to cheat members of the public. Per the Bench, the

mere fact that others joined in the conspiracy in the course of those years

or the fact that several incidents of cheating took place pursuant to the

5

AIR 1957 SC 340 = (1956) 2 SCC 144

9

conspiracy did not change the conspiracy or split it up into several

conspiracies. It was held that the instances of cheating were in pursuance

of one conspiracy and were, therefore, parts of the same transaction.

10. In Banwarilal Jhunjhunwala and others vs. Union of India and

another

6

, this Court dealt with the question as to what is meant by ‘every

distinct offence’. It was held that ‘distinct’ meant ‘not identical’ and two

offences would be distinct if they are not, in any way, inter-related. It was

further held that if there is some inter-relation, there would be no

distinctness and it would depend upon the circumstances of the case in

which the offences were committed whether there be separate charges

for those offences or not.

11. In Cheemalapati Ganeswara Rao (supra), a 3-Judge Bench of this

Court observed that, what is to be ascertained under Section 235(1) of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (equivalent to Section 218(1) CrPC),

was whether the offences arise out of acts so connected together as to

form the same transaction. It was noted that ‘same transaction’ is not

defined anywhere in the 1898 Code and it was held that whether

transactions can be regarded as the same transaction would necessarily

depend upon the particular facts of each case. The Bench noted that the

general thought is that, where there is proximity of time or place or unity

6

AIR 1963 SC 1620 = 1963 Supp (2) SCR 338

10

of purpose and design or continuity of action in respect of a series of acts,

it may be possible to infer that they form part of the same transaction. The

Bench, however, cautioned that it is not necessary that every one of these

elements should co-exist for transactions to be regarded as the same

transaction and elaborated that if several acts committed by a person

show a unity of purpose or design, then it may be a strong circumstance

to indicate that those acts form part of the same transaction. Noting that a

transaction may consist of an isolated act or a series of acts, the Bench

held that such series of acts must, of necessity, be connected with one

another and if some of them stand out independently, they would not form

part of the same transaction but would constitute a different transaction. It

was concluded that the ‘same transaction’ means a transaction consisting

either of a single act or of a series of connected acts.

12. In State of Jharkhand through SP, Central Bureau of Investigation vs.

Lalu Prasad Yadav alias Lalu Prasad

7

, this Court observed that even if the

modus operandi is the same, it would not make it a single offence when

the offences are separate. This Court held that, if a conspiracy is furthered

into several distinct offences, there have to be separate trials. Illustrating

the point, it was observed there may be a situation where, in furtherance

of a general conspiracy, offences take place in different parts of the

7

(2017) 8 SCC 1

11

country, leading to several persons being killed at different times and, in

such a situation, each trial would have to be held separately so that the

accused are punished separately for each offence committed in

furtherance of the conspiracy. It was pointed out if there is only one trial

for such a conspiracy, in spite of separate offences being committed, it

would enable the accused to go scot-free, despite committing a number

of offences, which is not the intendment of law.

13. In Amish Devgan vs. Union of India and others

8

, seven FIRs

came to be registered in the States of Rajasthan, Maharashtra, Telangana

and Uttar Pradesh in relation to a television telecast, which formed the

basis for the offences alleged. Applying the law laid down in T.T. Antony

vs. State of Kerala and others

9

, which was followed thereafter in Arnab

Ranjan Goswami vs. Union of India and others

10

, this Court directed

the clubbing of the FIRs. It was observed that, when the subject matter of

the FIRs is the same incident or occurrence or is in regard to incidents,

which are two or more parts of the same transaction, then a separate and

second FIR need not be proceeded with. It was observed that, in terms of

the law laid down in T.T. Antony (supra), the subsequent FIRs would be

treated as statements under Section 161 CrPC. It was held that it would

8

(2021) 1 SCC 1

9

(2001) 6 SCC 181

10

(2020) 14 SCC 12

12

be open to the other complainants to file protest petitions in case a closure

report was filed by the police. It was observed that upon filing of such

protest petitions, the Magistrate is obliged to consider the contentions

urged; even reject the closure report and take cognizance of the offence

as, otherwise, such complainants would face difficulty in contesting the

closure report, even if there is enough material to make out a case of

commission of the offence.

14. In Abhishek Singh Chauhan vs. Union of India and others

11

, this

Court again followed the exposition in Amish Devgan (supra) and

deemed it appropriate to exercise power under Article 142 of the

Constitution to direct clubbing of all the FIRs in different States so that

they could proceed together to a single trial, as far as possible. This

measure was adopted with the consent of all the concerned States.

15. In T.T. Antony (supra), this Court observed that there can be no

second FIR in relation to the same cognizable offence and, consequently,

there can be no fresh investigation on receipt of every subsequent

information in respect of the same cognizable offence or same occurrence

or incident, giving rise to one or more cognizable offences. It was

observed that, on receipt of information about a cognizable offence or any

incident giving rise to a cognizable offence or offences and on entering

11

2022 SCC OnLine SC 1936

13

the FIR in the Station House Diary, the officer in charge of the police

station has to investigate not merely the cognizable offence reported in

the FIR, but also any other connected offences that may be found to have

been committed. In this regard, it was specifically observed as under:

‘18. …….. All other information made orally or in writing after

the commencement of the investigation into the cognizable

offence disclosed from the facts mentioned in the first

information report and entered in the station house diary by the

police officer or such other cognizable offence as may come to

his notice during the investigation, will be statements falling

under Section 162 CrPC. No such information/statement can

properly be treated as an FIR and entered in the station house

diary again, as it would in effect be a second FIR and the same

cannot be in conformity with the scheme of CrPC.’

16. In Amanat Ali vs. State of Karnataka and others

12

, following the

ratio decidendi in Amish Devgan (supra), this Court exercised power

under Article 142 of the Constitution and consolidated six FIRs registered

in the State to be tried together, as multiplicity of proceedings would not

be in the larger public interest or in the interest of the State. Again, in

Ravinder Singh Sidhu vs. State of Punjab and others

13

, this Court

observed that it is now fairly well settled that multiplicity of proceedings

would not be in the larger public interest and the correct course of action

would be to merge the later FIRs with the earliest FIR with the State’s

12

(2023) 14 SCC 801

13

2025 SCC OnLine SC 1164

14

consent. On the same lines, in Alok Kumar vs. State of Bihar and

others

14

, this Court noted that 81 FIRs were registered and directed the

first FIR to be treated as the main FIR and all other FIRs to be treated as

statements under Section 161 CrPC. Earlier, in Satinder Singh Bhasin

vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another

15

, a 3-Judge Bench of this Court

followed the principle enunciated in Amish Devgan (supra) and clubbed,

with consent, the 118 FIRs relating to the Bike Bot scheme registered

across the State of Uttar Pradesh and one FIR registered by the Economic

Offences Wing, New Delhi, by exercising power under Article 142 of the

Constitution. Before that, in Radhey Shyam vs. State of Haryana and

others

16

, the very same 3-Judge Bench took note of multiple FIRs in

connection with a network marketing scheme in as many as 12 States and

directed the clubbing of all the FIRs, which could thereafter proceed to

one trial as far as possible, duly noting that all the States concerned voiced

no objection to such course of action.

17. However, in Amandeep Singh Saran vs. State of Delhi and

others

17

, this Court refused to consolidate the FIRs registered against the

petitioner therein in different States, not only under the provisions of the

IPC but also invoking respective State enactments for which Special

14

2025 SCC OnLine SC 1728

15

(2023) 14 SCC 805

16

2022 SCC OnLine SC 1935

17

2023 SCC OnLine SC 1851

15

Courts were designated to try the offences thereunder, on the ground that

clubbing of such FIRs would mean that the jurisdiction of such Special

Courts would be taken away and a special jurisdiction would be conferred

on that one Court where the FIRs were clubbed to try offences arising

under different State enactments.

18. We must also refer to Narinderjit Singh Sahni and another vs.

Union of India and others

18

, a decision that weighed heavily with the

High Court in answering the reference. Therein, a 3-Judge Bench of this

Court dealt with a case involving 250 FIRs registered throughout the

country. The argument before this Court was that they constituted a single

offence or, in the alternative, an offence which could only have been

committed in the course of the same transaction. Dealing with this

argument, the Bench observed that the fact situation did not permit any

credence being given to the submission that the FIRs pertained to a single

offence. It was held that each individual deposit agreement had to be

treated as a separate and individual transaction brought about by the

allurement of the financial companies, since the parties were different, the

amount of deposit was different as also the period for which the deposit

was made. The Bench, therefore, observed that all the characteristics of

independent transactions were there and it did not see any compelling

18

(2002) 2 SCC 210

16

reason to hold otherwise. However, we may note, with all due respect, that

there was no in-depth analysis of statutory provisions or case law in the

context of commission of offences in the course of the same transaction,

whereby persons accused of multiple offences committed in the course of

that same transaction could be charged and tried together. In any event,

the development of law on the point, referred to hereinabove, including

later decisions of 3-Judge Benches, is indicative of the legal position

prevailing as on date. The above referred judgments sum up the legal

position adequately and we see no purpose in burdening this decision with

more case law on the point.

19. We may note that Section 218(1) CrPC requires a distinct and

separate charge for every distinct offence and each such separate charge

should be tried separately. Sections 219 to 223 CrPC constitute

exceptions to this general rule and stipulate the circumstances in which

deviation therefrom can be made. Under Section 219 CrPC, three such

offences committed during a year can be the subject matter of a single

trial [now, five such offences, under Section 242 of the Bharatiya Nagarik

Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)]. Under Sections 220(1) CrPC and

223(a) and (d) CrPC, consolidated charges can be framed against several

accused persons in relation to several offences, if such offences are

committed during the course of the same transaction. It would, therefore,

turn upon the offences forming part of the ‘same transaction’.

17

20. As already noted hereinabove, precedential law has laid down triple

tests, though not to be applied cumulatively, to decide when separate

actions can be treated as part of the ‘same transaction’ – 1) unity of

purpose and design; 2) proximity of time and place; and 3) continuity of

action. These tests may be applied to ascertain whether a series of acts

form part of the same transaction or not. It is not necessary at the present

stage to consider whether consolidation of charges under Section 220(1)

CrPC should be resorted to, as that would depend upon the opinion of the

Magistrate on the strength of the findings recorded during the

investigation. If it is opined that all the incidents partake of the same

transaction, there can be one trial under Section 220(1) CrPC and Section

223(a) and (d) CrPC. If, however, it is concluded that there are several

transactions and distinct offences in relation to different victims, there

have to be separate trials for each offence, subject to Section 219 CrPC/

Section 242 BNSS, which allows the Trial Court to try three/five offences

of the same kind committed within a year. Once all the incidents are taken

to be part of the same transaction and amalgamated into one FIR, the

punishment would follow accordingly as per law.

21. We agree with the learned amicus that the reference by the learned

Additional Sessions Judge was premature, as the stage had not arisen for

her to have entertained any doubt so as to raise the questions of law that

she did for the decision of the High Court. The investigation was still

18

ongoing and it could not have been ascertained at that stage as to whether

the alleged offences formed part and parcel of the same transaction. Even

otherwise, consolidation of FIRs is permissible in law but that would have

also depended upon the conclusions to be arrived at after the

investigation. However, as on date, as many as six supplementary

chargesheets have been filed during the pendency of this case, in addition

to the main chargesheet that was filed in the year 2014. We find that the

end result of the investigation undertaken is that an offence under Section

120B IPC has been alleged, i.e., a criminal conspiracy. Therefore, as a

conspiracy is alleged, leading to multiple acts of cheating against different

individuals, the course adopted by the Delhi Police in registering one FIR

and treating the complaints received from 1851 other complainants as

statements under Section 161 CrPC, was the correct course of action to

have been adopted at that stage.

22. The inference to be drawn from the chargesheets, as filed, is left to

the Magistrate concerned to consider, so as to ascertain whether the

various acts of cheating attributed to the accused persons constitute part

of the ‘same transaction’, thereby bringing them within the ambit of

Section 220(1) CrPC and Section 223 (a) & (d) CrPC. If the offences

formed part of the same transaction, the Magistrate would be entitled to

charge and try them together, as enabled by the aforestated provisions,

as it would be in the larger public interest to do so. Further, in such an

19

event, as pointed out in Amish Devgan (supra), the complainants, who

would then be treated as witnesses in relation to the FIR which was first

registered, would be entitled to file protest petitions in the event of a

closure report being filed or if the Magistrate is inclined to discharge the

accused, and the Magistrate concerned is bound to consider the same on

merits. Coming to the aspect of sentencing, the provisions of Section 71

IPC along with Sections 31 and 325 CrPC would have to be adhered to,

depending upon the established facts and findings in the case.

23. Viewed thus, we set aside the answers on questions (a) & (b)

by the Division Bench of the High Court. The judgment dated 08.07.2019

passed by the High Court of Delhi in Criminal Reference No. 1 of 2014 is,

accordingly, set aside to that extent.

The appeal is allowed in the aforestated terms.

Before, we part with the case, we would like to place on record our

appreciation and gratitude for the able and erudite assistance rendered

by Mr. R Basant, learned amicus curiae.

……………………...J

[SANJAY KUMAR]

.……………………...J

[ALOK ARADHE]

January 6, 2026

New Delhi.