TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 413
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....titioner as mentioned. (b) Quash and set aside all the FIRs lodged in Maharashtra Pune Cyber Police Station Pune City with FIR No.0499 of 2024 Bengaluru with Crime No. 412 of 2024, and Crime No.275/2024 and in Odisha with Crime No. 32 of 2024, under section 120B,170, 389, 417, 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 506 R/w 35, 36, 37 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and section 43, 66(c) and 66(d) of I.T. Act. (c) In the alternative, direct that all the above-mentioned FIRs be clubbed and consolidated, and further direct that only one composite investigation be carried out, preferably by a single investigating agency, to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and conflicting investigations. (d) Pass any other just and equitable order in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience." 2. The subject FIRs have been registered in the States of Maharashtra, Karnataka and Odisha under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ['IPC' for short] and the Information Technology Act, 2000 ['IT Act' for short]. At this juncture, it would be apposite to set out the details of the FIRs which form the subject matter of the present proceedings: S. No. FIR No. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rd the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. Whether the subject FIRs should be quashed? 6. The principal relief sought by the petitioner is the quashing of the subject FIRs. Before examining whether such relief deserves to be granted, it would be apposite to consider whether a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution is maintainable for seeking quashing of an FIR. 7. Article 32 of the Constitution is the constitutional conduit through which this Court may issue 'appropriate' writs for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Part III. The right to approach this Court under Article 32 is itself a fundamental right and has been aptly described by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar as the 'heart and soul' of the Constitution. The jurisdiction conferred under Article 32 is undoubtedly wide. At the same time, it is an extraordinary remedy which must be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances, particularly when it is necessary to secure the ends of justice or to prevent the infringement of fundamental rights. 8. It is well settled that the power of this Court under Article 32 is broad enough to quash criminal proc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....titioner therein, having found that the allegations levelled against him directly impinged upon his fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a). While doing so, this Court reiterated that the practice of relegating the petitioner to approach the High Court before approaching this Court is a matter of self-discipline and that there is no bar on this Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution to quash the criminal proceedings. "30. In Jagisha Arora v. State of U.P. [Jagisha Arora v. State of U.P., (2019) 6 SCC 619 : (2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 881], this Court entertained a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution against an order of remand passed by the jurisdictional Magistrate despite the objection that the order must be challenged in accordance with the provisions of the Code. The discussion was : (SCC pp. 619-20, paras 2-7) "... ... ... 5. As a matter of self-imposed discipline and considering the pressure of mounting cases on this Court, it has become the practice of this Court to ordinarily direct that the High Court first be approached even in cases of violation of fundamental rights. However, Article 32 which is itself a funda....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e powers as enshrined under Part III of the Constitution to provide remedies against the violation of fundamental rights. The very fact that the right to constitutional remedies has itself been enshrined as a fundamental right is a clear affirmation that this Court is the ultimate guarantor of their enforcement. Once the Constitution has cast such a responsibility upon it, this Court need not direct a petitioner to pursue an alternative remedy, when the grievance stems from the alleged violation of a fundamental right. 91. At the same time, although, as a matter of orderly procedure and judicial discipline, an aggrieved party is expected, in the ordinary course, to first approach the High Court, yet where facts disclose a palpable violation of the fundamental rights necessitating urgent intervention, it is incumbent upon this Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, to step in and secure justice. In such circumstances, the existence of an alternative remedy cannot dilute the constitutional mandate entrusted to this Court. That is why it is said that "Let justice be done, though the Heavens may fall"." (emphasis supplied) 10. In the present case, the petitio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....acy, the registration of the same is permissible. 14.1. In T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala- (2001) 6 SCC 181, this Court held that no successive FIRs could be filed in connection with the same or connected cognizable offence alleged to have been committed in the course of the same transaction. It was observed as under: "18. ... All other informations 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 offences 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. Take a case where an FIR mentions cognizable offence under Section 307 or 326 IPC and the investigating agency learns during the investigation or receives fresh information that the victim died, no fresh FIR under Section 302 IPC need be registered which will be ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion with the same or connected cognizable offence alleged to have been committed in the course of the same transaction and in respect of which pursuant to the first FIR either investigation is under way or final report under Section 173(2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate, may be a fit case for exercise of power under Section 482 CrPC or under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution." (emphasis supplied) [See also: Amit Katyal v. State of Haryana- 2026 SCC OnLine SC 890] 14.2. Significantly, in Babubhai v. State of Gujarat- (2010) 12 SCC 254 this Court held that the 'test of sameness' has to be applied to determine whether two FIRs relate to the same incident or form different parts of the same transaction. It held that if the answer is in the affirmative, the second FIR ought to be quashed. However, in case the contrary is proved, where the version in the second FIR is different or is in respect of a different incident/crime, then a subsequent FIR is permissible. [See also: Arnab Ranjan Goswami (supra)] 14.3. In Anju Chaudhary v. State of U.P.- (2013) 6 SCC 384 this Court held that registration of a second FIR is permissible where the incident is separate; offe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gistration of a second FIR, in the following terms: "9. From the above conspectus of judgments, inter alia, the following principles emerge regarding the permissibility of the registration of a second FIR: 9.1 When the second FIR is counter-complaint or presents a rival version of a set of facts, in reference to which an earlier FIR already stands registered. 9.2 When the ambit of the two FIRs is different even though they may arise from the same set of circumstance es. 9.3 When investigation and/or other avenues reveal the earlier FIR or set of facts to be part of a larger conspiracy. 9.4 When investigation and/or persons related to the incident bring to the light hitherto unknown facts or circumstances. 9.5 Where the incident is separate; offences are similar or different." (emphasis supplied) 15. A conspectus of the decisions referred to above makes it clear, inter alia, that registration of multiple FIRs is impermissible if they relate to the same incident or form part of the same transaction. However, where the subsequent FIR relates to a distinct offence/incident or a separate transaction, its registration cannot be ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f a series of connected acts. 12. In State of Jharkhand through SP, Central Bureau of Investigation v. Lalu Prasad Yadav alias Lalu Prasad7, 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. ... ... ... ... 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. ... 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....