Single FIR Permissible In Mass Cheating Cases Arising From One Conspiracy : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court  has held that in cases alleging a single criminal conspiracy resulting in cheating of a large number of investors, the registration of one FIR and treatment of other complaints as statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) is legally permissible. The Court set aside the contrary view taken by the Delhi High Court in 2019, which had mandated separate FIRs for each individual investor.

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Alok Aradhe allowed the appeal filed by the State (NCT of Delhi) and held that the High Court's answers in the criminal reference were unsustainable.

Background

The case arose from FIR No. 89 of 2009 registered by the Economic Offences Wing of Delhi Police on a complaint alleging that Ashok Jadeja and his associates, including Khimji Bhai Jadeja, cheated investors by falsely claiming divine powers to triple money. Investigation revealed that 1,852 investors were allegedly duped of about ₹46.40 crore.

Though only one FIR was registered, complaints of the remaining investors were treated as statements. During bail proceedings, the trial court referred three questions of law to the Delhi High Court under Section 395(2) CrPC on whether each deposit constituted a separate transaction requiring a separate FIR and charge sheet, and whether clubbing would improperly cap punishment.

Delhi High Court's Answers 

Answering the reference, the Delhi High Court held:

On Question (a):

“…. 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 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.”

On Question (b):

“…. 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…”

Submissions Of Amicus Curiae  

Senior Advocate R. Basant, appointed as amicus curiae, made detailed submissions opposing the High Court's approach. He argued that the reference itself was premature, as investigation was still ongoing and the police were yet to determine whether the alleged acts formed part of the same transaction under Sections 220 and 223 CrPC.

He submitted that the allegations in FIR No. 89 of 2009 clearly disclosed a single conspiracy and that registration of one FIR was therefore appropriate. Even if multiple FIRs had been registered, consolidation was permissible in law, as repeatedly recognised by the Supreme Court. He emphasised that the question whether charges could be consolidated was one to be considered at the stage of framing of charges, not at the stage of investigation.

The amicus also pointed out that the chargesheets alleged a general conspiracy under Section 120B IPC and that treating complaints of other victims as statements did not deprive them of remedies, as they could still file protest petitions.

Supreme Court's Analysis

Agreeing with the amicus, the Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in mandating separate FIRs at the threshold. The Bench observed that the core issue was whether the offences formed part of the “same transaction”, which could be determined only after investigation.

The Court reiterated the settled tests for determining a “same transaction” and observed:

“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' – unity of purpose and design; proximity of time and place; and continuity of action.”

On the permissibility of a single FIR, the Court held:

“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.”

The Bench clarified that victims whose complaints are treated as statements are not left remediless, as they retain the right to file protest petitions if a closure report is filed or if the accused are discharged. On sentencing, the Court held that concerns about proportionality cannot dictate FIR registration and that sentencing must follow Sections 71 IPC and 31 CrPC, depending on findings at trial.

 Setting aside the Delhi High Court's answers to questions (a) and (b), the Supreme Court allowed the State's appeal and held that consolidation or separation of charges must be left to the trial court at the stage of framing of charges.  

Case : The State (NCT of Delhi) v. Khimji Bhai Jadeja

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 11

Click here to read the judgment