Mere Transfer Of Defrauded Amount To Accused's Account Doesn't Establish Same Transaction To Club FIRs : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Friday (July 24) refused to grant relief of clubbing of FIRs to a person accused of cyber fraud, noting that mere involvement of the accused bank account for the purpose of transferring the defrauded amounts would not be sufficient to hold that the incidents form the part of the same transaction to justify clubbing of FIRs.

The Court noted that each FIR had been lodged by a different complainant who was allegedly induced to part with money on different occasions. The mere fact that part of the defrauded amounts allegedly reached the petitioner's bank account did not establish a "live link or connectivity" between the separate incidents, it held.

“The mere fact that a part of the defrauded amounts is alleged to have been transferred in the bank account of petitioner's proprietary concern does not, by itself, establish that all the incidents form part of the same transaction. Though the alleged modus operandi appears to be similar, the victims, the amounts involved, the transactions complained of and the consequences suffered are distinct. Prima facie, therefore, the subject FIRs relate to separate transactions disclosing distinct offences and cannot be said to arise out of the same transaction.”, observed a bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih.

The allegations, as emerging from the FIRs, pertain to incidents of cyber fraud, wherein the complainants were contacted by unknown persons posing as police officials and were falsely informed that several money laundering activities had been carried out in their names. On this pretext, the complainants were induced to transfer large sums of money to various bank accounts for verification and investigation.

It was alleged that a part of the money, so transferred, was credited to a bank Account, a proprietary concern of the petitioner. Though the petitioner is not named as an accused in the subject FIRs, the aforesaid bank account belonging to his proprietary concern finds a mention therein.

Following the FIRs registered at police stations of different States, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking a quashing of FIRs, or in alternative sought clubbing/consolidation of FIRs.

Dismissing the petitioner, the judgment authored by Justice Karol refused to quash the FIRs, as the petitioner failed to explain the violation of a fundamental rights. [See Rajendra Bihari Lal v. State of U.P, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1021]

Moreover, the Court also refused to direct the clubbing of FIRs, noting that “…each of the subject FIRs has been lodged by a different complainant who was allegedly induced to part with money on different occasions but with no live link or connectivity of transactions inter se different set of persons.”

“…there cannot be a second FIR in respect of the same incident or occurrence or in respect of the incidents which form a part of the same transaction. At the same time, where the subsequent FIR, inter alia, relates to a distinct occurrence or offence; is a counter-complaint; or reveals a larger conspiracy, the registration of the same is permissible.”, the Court said. [See TT Antony V. State of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC 181]

The Court referred to a recent case of State (NCT of Delhi) v. Khimji Bhai Jadeja, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 11 to explain that the present case failed to satisfy the "triple tests" to determine if acts form the 'same transaction' i.e., (1) unity of purpose and design; (2) proximity of time and place; and (3) continuity of action, to justify clubbing of FIRs.

“…we are unable to grant the relief of clubbing and consolidation of the subject FIRs, as sought in prayer (c) of the writ petition. In the present case, each of the subject FIRs has been lodged by a different complainant who was allegedly induced to part with money on different occasions but with no live link or connectivity of transactions inter se different set of persons.”, the Court observed.

In terms of the aforesaid, the petition was dismissed, with a clarification that liberty is reserved to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum to seek appropriate relief(s) as he may be entitled to in law and/or avail any other remedy as may be available in law, if so advised.

Related: When Second FIR Can Be Registered : Supreme Court Outlines Key Circumstances

Cause Title: RUTVIJ BHAGAT SINGH WAKHARE Versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC 716

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Kaustubh Somnath Pawar, Adv. Mr. Shreyas P Barsawade, Adv. Mr. Nring Chamwibo Zeliang, Adv. Mr. Siddhartha Sinha, AOR

For Respondent(s) :Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv. Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv. Ms. Chitransha Singh Sikarwar, Adv.