Clubbing of multiple FIRs, preservation of bail, and exclusion of PMLA proceedings in connected fraud investigations.

Multiple FIRs arising from the same network marketing scheme were directed to be consolidated by treating the first Telangana FIR as the principal case under the general penal law, with later FIRs and connected proceedings merged and treated as statements under Section 161 CrPC. For State special enactments, the first FIR in each State was treated as the principal case, the remaining matters were clubbed state-wise, and the consolidated cases were to be tried by the competent Special Court under the relevant State law. Existing bail in the principal case was preserved after clubbing unless cancelled for supervening breach, while proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 were expressly kept outside the clubbing direction.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether multiple FIRs registered in different States in relation to the same network marketing scheme could be clubbed and treated with one principal FIR for investigation and trial; (ii) whether FIRs registered under State special enactments could be clubbed state-wise with the first FIR in each State and tried by the Special Court under the concerned State legislation; (iii) whether bail granted in relation to the principal FIR would continue to enure to the accused after clubbing, and whether offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 were excluded from the clubbing direction.

Issue (i): Whether multiple FIRs registered in different States in relation to the same network marketing scheme could be clubbed and treated with one principal FIR for investigation and trial.

Analysis: The allegations disclosed a common factual foundation across the FIRs and arose from the same scheme. To avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the Court invoked its constitutional power to direct that the FIR first registered in Telangana would serve as the principal FIR for the cases under the general law. Subsequent FIRs in other States were directed to be treated as statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and where police reports had already been filed and cognizance taken, those matters were also to stand transferred and merged with the principal case. The investigating agency in the principal case was permitted to file supplementary charge-sheets after collation of materials from the clubbed cases.

Conclusion: The FIRs under the general penal law were ordered to be clubbed with the principal FIR No. 710/2018 in Telangana.

Issue (ii): Whether FIRs registered under State special enactments could be clubbed state-wise with the first FIR in each State and tried by the Special Court under the concerned State legislation.

Analysis: For States where special depositors protection laws applied, the first FIR in that State was directed to be treated as the principal criminal case, with the remaining FIRs and connected criminal cases in that State to stand clubbed and merged. The Court further clarified that the competent Special Court under the relevant State enactment would try the consolidated matters. It was also clarified that if the first FIR in a State related only to the general law but later FIRs invoked the special enactment, the consolidated case would nevertheless be tried under the special law by the Special Court. Offences not falling within the special enactment could also be tried by that Special Court.

Conclusion: State-wise clubbing was directed for Haryana, Madhya Pradesh, and Maharashtra with the first FIR in each State as the principal case, to be tried by the concerned Special Court.

Issue (iii): Whether bail granted in relation to the principal FIR would continue to enure to the accused after clubbing, and whether offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 were excluded from the clubbing direction.

Analysis: The Court protected existing bail by directing that if any accused had been granted bail in the principal FIR or the case arising therefrom, the benefit of that bail would continue unless cancelled by a competent court for supervening circumstances, including breach of conditions. At the same time, the Court expressly excluded proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 from the clubbing direction, stating that they must proceed under that separate legislation and through the separate investigating agency. It also permitted a fresh bail application in relation to Maharashtra special enactment offences to be considered on its own merits.

Conclusion: Existing bail was directed to continue upon clubbing, and PMLA proceedings were kept outside the clubbing order.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions succeeded to the extent of a comprehensive clubbing and consolidation of connected FIRs and criminal cases, with separate treatment for State special enactments and exclusion of PMLA proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: Where multiple FIRs arise from the same transaction or scheme, constitutional powers may be used to prevent multiplicity by identifying a principal FIR, clubbing connected cases, and directing trial before the appropriate forum, while preserving existing bail and excluding separately governed special statutes where necessary.

---