The recent decision by the Supreme Court to reject the consolidation of multiple First Information Reports (FIRs) involving the petitioner across various states has brought attention to the complexities arising from offenses falling under both the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and state enactments designed for investor protection. The petitioner faced charges not only under the IPC but also under specific state laws, each with its own designated special courts.
The Court's rationale behind this decision was grounded in the observation that the FIRs against the petitioner invoked provisions not just of the IPC but also of state enactments, leading to the establishment of special courts in each state to address offenses related to investor protection. Attempting to consolidate these FIRs would potentially infringe upon the jurisdiction of these specialized courts, posing a challenge to the legal framework designed for such cases.
The bench, consisting of Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan, heard a writ petition filed under Article 32, seeking the clubbing of FIRs against the petitioner in different states before an appropriate Investigating Agency/Court in Delhi. The petitioner, represented by Senior Advocate J.S. Attri, drew attention to the Radhey Shyam v. State of Haryana case, where multiple FIRs were consolidated to avoid procedural complications. The petitioner sought a similar approach, facing a total of 30 FIRs across various states.
In response, ASG Vikramjit Banerjee, representing the respondent, referred to the Balasaheb Keshawrao Bhapkar v. State of Maharashtra judgment, emphasizing that the petitioner could seek relief and consolidation of FIRs within the jurisdictional High Courts of each respective state. This highlighted the alternative legal avenues available for addressing the petitioner's concerns.
The petitioner also cited precedent cases such as Pawan Khera’s and Mohammad Zubair’s, where the Supreme Court consolidated FIRs. However, the Court distinguished these cases, noting that they involved a single common offense for which multiple FIRs were filed across the country. In the present scenario, the offenses spanned different states and were subject to specific state enactments, making consolidation more intricate.
The Court, after thorough consideration, held that the order in Radhey Shyam's case could not be directly applied in the current situation. The earlier order was issued under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and with the consent of the concerned states, which differed from the circumstances at hand. Consequently, the Court declined to exercise jurisdiction under Article 142 in the present case. However, it reserved the liberty for the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional High Courts in each state to seek the consolidation of FIRs pending against them within that particular state. The petitioner was also granted the freedom to pursue any other interim or final remedies available under the law.
In essence, the Supreme Court's decision reflects a careful consideration of the jurisdictional complexities arising from offenses under both national and state laws. While upholding the specialized courts' jurisdiction, the Court has provided the petitioner with a recourse to seek consolidation and remedies through the respective High Courts, acknowledging the nuanced nature of the legal landscape in this multi-state scenario.
TAGS: Indian Penal Code (IPC) State enactments Investor protection Specialized courts Jurisdiction Article 32 Writ petition Legal complexities
