1. This present criminal writ petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. in terms of the leave and liberty granted by the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 04.03.2024 passed in D.B. CWP No.5751/2021; seeking reliefs to the tune of quashing of FIRs and/or clubbing of FIRs and investigations, registered subsequent to the FIR No.24/2018 at PS SOG, Jaipur dated 28.12.2018; and direct these FIRs to be treated as supplementary charge-sheet in case no. CR.REG.Case 104/2019 titled ‘State of Rajasthan Vs. Virendra Modi & Ors.’ arising out of the said FIR.

2. Brief facts of the case borne out from the pleadings and as are relevant for the consideration of the matter are as follows:

(i) In the year 1999, ACCSL was established and registered as a co-operative society with the Registrar of Societies, Rajasthan at its head office at Sirohi, Rajasthan. ACCSL was established with the primary objective of promoting the interests of its members to attenuate their social and economic betterment through self-help and mutual aid, inter alia by way of accepting deposits from its members and granting loans.

In the month of February 2008, ACCSL, was registered as a Multi-State Cooperative Society by conversion under the provisions of the Multi-State Co-operative Society Act, 2002, thereby extending its operation to the states of Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh.

By the year 2017, ACCSL had established approximately 800 branches in 23 States and Union Territories in India with 15,00,000 members and 3,70,000 advisors.

On 20.6.2018, Union of India through The Ministry of Corporate Affairs vide an order dated 20.6.2018, ordered SFIO to investigate Adarsh Group of Companies & LLP u/S 212(1)(c) of the Companies Act r/w S 43(2) & 3(c)(i) of the LLP Act.

(ii) On 6.12.2018, various correspondences transpired between SFIO and the Central Registrar Societies (Ministry of Agri, GOI), the latter being the authority over ACCSL under the MSCS Act. Consequently, the Central Registrar Societies ordered the winding up of ACCSL and appointed (Retd.) IAS Shri. H.S Patel as the official Liquidator and thereupon day to day affairs & control was taken over by the Liquidator.

(iii) SFIO investigated the loanee companies of ACCSL and since it has no power to investigate a society, Respondent No. 2, SOG registered an FIR No. 24/2018 dated 28.12.2018 u/s 120-B, 420, 406, 409, 467, 468, 471, 477A of IPC wherein SOG chose to investigate into the entire amount of Rs. 12,414 Cr. siphoned from more than 20 Lac investors of ACCSL. FIR registered by the SOG encompasses all transactions made by ACCSL pan India and therefore, automatically subsumes within itself all the pending investigations/inquiries or complaints filed. SOG had registered FIR no. 24/2018 pursuant to an alleged complaint of one member investor, Mrs. Neha Manohar whose principal investment amount was Rs. 12.5 Lacs. Further, Ms. Neha Manohar alleged that she had learnt that the present-petitioners had illegally embezzled/siphoned off the deposits of all investors in shell companies and thereby committed fraud with the investors. Neha Manohar's alleged complaint on 28.12.2018 was limited to her investment amounting to 12.5 Lacs but SOG chose to investigate the alleged siphoned amount of Rs. 12,414 Crores from more than 20 lac investors of ACCSL.

(iv) SOG on the basis of such allegation of siphoning of funds, registered the FIR no. 24/2018 under various sections of IPC, IT Act, Banning Act 1978 etc. for investigation of siphoning of the funds received as investment amounting to Rs. 12,414 Crore from 20 Lakh investors across India. It is pertinent to mention here that this fact underlines the position that complete controversy including but not limited to the larger conspiracy involving multiple investors in the matter has been investigated by the SOG.

Consequently, SOG has vehemently included within its sweep and ambit investments from all the member investors of ACCSL across India. The detailed and all-inclusive investigation of SOG is vouched for in the charge-sheet which encompasses the investigation regarding principal investment amount of Rs. 7,678.14 Crores from 806 branches of 9,60,694 investors from across India which includes investment amount of Rs. 5,620.64 Crores from 309 branches of 6,39,194 investors from Rajasthan. Upon maturity, the investments amount being Rs. 1174.81 Crores and interest due was Rs. 217.91 Crores across India which includes matured investment amount of Rs. 76146 Crores and interest due of Rs 189.55 Crores from Rajasthan till 31.12.2018.

On account of investigation being carried out by the SFIO, a panic dawned amongst members of the ACCSL and thereby they rushed to their respective branches for withdrawal of their amounts. All the withdrawal requests were honoured by the ex- management, petitioners herein, from 20.06.2018 to 6.12.2018 till the day-to-day affairs & control was taken over by the liquidator. Aditionally, the account statement of Neha Manohar reveals that she successfully withdrew amounts/interest/return on investment even after the registration of the SOG FIR dated 28.12.2018.

On 10.12.2018, SFIO arrested petitioner No.4 Rahul Modi and petitioner No.7 Mukesh Modi.

On 25.5.2019, 26.5.2019, all petitioners (except Mukesh Modi and Rahul Modi) were arrested by the SOG.

On 10.6.2019, Mukesh Modi and Rahul Modi were arrested by way of production warrant and they have been in SFIO custody since 10.12.2018.

(v) On 06.09.2019, an Advisory letter was issued by the Home Department wherein, it was specifically stated that once the SOG has investigated an offence, local police should not investigate the same. The SOG itself had written a letter dated 20.06.2019 to all police stations in Rajasthan to transfer all FIRs regarding Adarsh Society, in Rajasthan to SOG, Jaipur.

On 22.7.2019, charge-sheet was filed with regard to the entire investment done by the member-depositors across India and the trial Court took cognizance.

On 19.9.2019, the trial Court ordered that since the investigation is pending qua the petitioners hence charges cannot be framed.

On 11.2.2020, the SOG, filed a supplementary charge-sheet in FIR No. 24/2018 & later on filed its second and third supplementary charge-sheets.

(vi) SOG registered 18 new subsequent FIRs against loanee entities/individuals of Adarsh Society and there after filed closure reports in those subsequent 18 FIRs on the ground that the subject matter of those FIRs, that is 187 loan accounts are already being investigated into by the SOG in FIR 24/2018. Thereafter, the trial Court accepted those closure reports and took them on record.

(vii) On 02.05.2022, the Trial Court accepted the closure reports and recorded that misappropriation/embezzlement caused by 187 loan accounts/partnership firms/individuals/AOP is already under investigation by the SOG in FIR 24/2018.

On 30.01.2021, two more closure reports were filed in FIR No. 244/2019, police station Kuchaman City and 451/2019 police station Pilani on the ground that the entire transaction between the member investor and petitioner accused persons is of civil nature.

On 29.11.2021, the SOG issued a supervisory note to all District Superintendent of Police, Rajasthan and directed them inter alia to investigate the role of Chairman, Managing Director and other board members and to arraign them as accused for not returning the investment amounts to the investor complainants and to mention the same in their respective investigation reports in the FIRs and to further include entire investment amount of all the investors across all branches of Rajasthan and of India and provide them with exact figures, numbers of investors and their investment amounts.

On 09.12.2021, charge-sheet was filed in FIR no. 219/2019 wherein, it was categorically recorded that the entire record of the said FIR has already been transferred to the SOG, however, the same had still been returned to their police stations for investigation.

On 23.12.2021, charge-sheet was filed in FIR no.24/2018 wherein the entire reliance is placed on the charge-sheet previously filed by the SOG.

On 09.05.2021, charge-sheet was filed in FIR no. 21/2021 wherein it was reiterated that the original record was seized by the SOG in FIR 24/2018.

On 09.09.2022, charge-sheet was filed in FIR no. 0451/2019 and it was concluded that no offence was made out against Kamlesh Chaudhary, whereas Kamlesh Chaudhary and Petitioner No. 2 are arrayed as accused by SOG in FIR 24/2018.

(viii) For the sake of clarity, the details of all the FIRs in entirety is provided in a tabular form below:-

(ix) Later, in direct contradiction to the Home Department guideline dated 06.01.2019, the SOG issued a supervisory note on date 29.11.2019, revoking its previous directions to all Police Stations in Rajasthan and instructing them to re-investigate each FIR.

(x) On 27.04.2021, petitioners approached this Hon'ble Court by filing CWP 5751/2021 seeking reading down of Section 177 & 178 of the Cr.P.C as well as the clubbing of the FIRs.

Later the reply was filed by the SOG and the state of Rajasthan in the CWP 5751/2021.

On 04.03.2024, the matter came up for hearing and the petitioner withdrew the petition whilst taking leave and liberty, granted by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in CWP 5751/2021 to approach this Hon'ble Court under 482 Cr.P.C. and all other enabling provisions in this regard.

3. The counsel for the petitioner has put forth the following submissions:-

(i) The FIR registered by the SOG encompasses all transactions made by ACCSL pan India and therefore, automatically subsumes within itself all the pending investigations/inquiries or complaints filed across the country.

(ii) SOG itself had written a letter addressing all District Superintendents of Police in the State of Rajasthan to transfer all investigations/inquiries pending against ACCSL to it.

(iii) Furthermore, the charge-sheet filed by the SOG took into consideration investments made across India as well as those in the State of Rajasthan.

(iv) All investments made with ACCSL by its members across India till 31.12.2018 have already been investigated by SOG as mentioned in its Charge sheet.

(v) Not a single default has been made by the Society whilst in control of the petitioners, however, the defaults in payments have only occurred after the said Society went under liquidation on 06.12.2018.

(vi) The Trial Court vide order dated 22.04.2019 has already taken cognizance of all investments and deposits made by all investors across India as given in the charge sheet of SLP.

(vii) The FIRs/complaints made against the Petitioners in relation to the affairs of ACCSL across Rajasthan are already a subject matter of concern in the investigation conducted by the SOG and therefore the series of acts across India of ACCSL are inextricably connected with one another.

(viii) All subsequent FIRs are with respect to the same deposits/cause of action already investigated by the SOG;

(ix) Furthermore, in June 2020, 18 subsequent FIRs were registered by SOG itself on the ground that in the said FIR 24/2020 closure report has been filed by SOG on the ground that principal FIR i.e. FIR 24/2018 already stands registered and therefore there is no need for continuation of the other FIRs against the petitioner on the same cause of action;

(x) Furthermore, vide a recent supervisory note issued in November 2021 various directions have been issued by the SOG completely contrary to the letter (Annexure A-4), whereby, directions have been made to a particular accused and a specific line of action to be adopted by a police official in State of Rajasthan. This act is blatantly illegal and in. complete contrast to the initial stand taken by the SOG. Such conflicting & illegal directions have resulted in conflicting opinions post-investigation by various police stations resulting to a never-ending exploitation of state resources (Zubair case). Furthermore, also there has been a conflicting opinion even in the FIRs of Rajasthan wherein two police stations have filed closure reports stating that the alleged offence of Petitioners is of civil nature and therefore criminal prosecution cannot lie. Whereas, a few police stations have found no offence against a few petitioners, even though they are accused in SOG FIR 24/2018.

(xi) It is alleged that as on 31.06.2019, all the investors were continuously demanding for payment of their deposits amounting to around Rs. 11174 crores and ACCSL was denying the repayment thereof hence the SOG commenced its investigation. So instead of investigating for the cause of one member investor/complainant Mrs. Neha Manohar, individually, SOG chose to investigate the cause of the entire investment amount of all the member investors across India, collectively, and submitted its charge-sheet and declared that it has investigated the amounts of all. investors which were collected by ACCSL by virtue of deception.

(xii) That a bare perusal of criminal jurisprudence would lead to an inevitable conclusion that where a series of the acts are inextricably connected and are committed in the course of the same transaction constituting the same or connected offence, all the offences pursuant thereto have to be inquired into, investigated or tried by the same/common investigating agency & the same/common court. Any other interpretation to the said provisions would render them to be unconstitutional & ultra vires of Articles 14, 19 & 21 of the Constitution. individual investors across India. Hence, the offence which is alleged to have been constituted is the single offence of Siphoning/misappropriation of the entire investment and hence, the same offence cannot be investigated in subsequent FIRS.

4. Learned Government Advocate and Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer made by the petitioner and submits that there is no illegality or infirmity in the investigations of each individual FIR being conducted by the Police Officers of the concerned respective Police Stations where the case has been lodged by the individual-informants. He further submits that transferring the investigations of all cases to the SOG may create trouble and financial burden on every individual-informant, as they may all be residing across various different places all over Rajasthan but would be required to come to the SOG office at Jaipur, if the situation so requires. He also submits that there is no provision under the existing law for clubbing the investigations of all such cases.

5. The criminal justice system in India is based on the premise that investigations should be thorough and fair. The Indian legal framework, designed to uphold justice and maintain order, includes provisions to ensure that investigations are conducted in a transparent and efficient manner. The process of registering First Information Reports (FIRs) plays a pivotal role in this system. FIRs are the initial step in the criminal justice process and mark the beginning of the police investigation. However, one critical aspect that has gained attention is whether the clubbing of multiple FIRs in a related case should be allowed under the Indian law. This is particularly important in cases where multiple FIRs arise from the same event or a connected chain of events.

6. An FIR serves as the foundation for initiating an investigation and an aid to ultimately file a charge sheet if there is enough evidence to proceed with a case. However, in a case, multiple FIRs can often emerge from different police stations or jurisdictions if the events leading to the criminal acts span across various areas or involve multiple victims or perpetrators.

7. Since, under the Indian law, there is no specific provision that allows for the automatic consolidation or clubbing of FIRs, each FIR is typically treated as a separate case unless the court in exercise of its extraordinary powers, orders otherwise. When multiple FIRs are registered for the same or related offense, their investigation at different levels can result in several complications. The most significant issue is the risk of conflicting investigations. Different investigating agencies may have differing views on the nature of the crime, the individuals involved, and the possible outcomes. They might take contradictory approaches, leading to confusion and inefficiency. This fragmented approach often leads to duplication of efforts and can delay the investigation, as the agencies may fail to share vital information with each other or may not consider the full context of the crime. Moreover, the lack of coordination between the agencies can result in conflicting conclusions. One agency may conclude that there is insufficient evidence to proceed with the case, while another may find grounds to file a charge-sheet. These conflicting opinions can cause delays in the legal process, prolonging the suffering of the victims and leading to inconsistency in the application of justice. Additionally, when multiple agencies are involved, resources are stretched thin. Each agency is likely to assign personnel to investigate its own version of events, leading to redundancy and inefficiency. For instance, the same witnesses may be interviewed multiple times, and the same physical evidence may be processed separately by different agencies. This not only wastes time and resources but also subjects victims and witnesses to unnecessary distress.

8. The Hon’ble Apex Court has time and again reiterated the law in this regard and has repeatedly opined to the same effect, setting firmly the ratio in terms of the issue concerned. At this juncture, I deem fit to cite a few pertinent judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the same are as follows:-

(A) Arnab Ranjan Goswami v. Union of India, reported as (2020) 14 SCC 12 : (2020) 4 SCC (Cri) 663 : 2020 SCC OnLine SC 462.

“28. At this stage, it is necessary to note that the attention of Mr Kapil Sibal and Dr Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel was specifically drawn to the fact that the FIRs which were filed in various States by persons professing allegiance to INC appear, prima facie, to be reproductions of the same language and content. Responding to this, Mr. Sibal fair(ly stated that in the exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 32, this Court may well quash all the other FIRs and allow the investigation into the FIR which has been transferred to N.M. Joshi Marg Police Station in Mumbai to proceed in accordance with law. Mr Sibal has also urged that there cannot be any dispute in regard to the legal position that a complaint in regard to the offence of defamation can only be at the behest of the person who is aggrieved. Consequently, the FIR which has been presently under investigation at N.M. Joshi Marg Police Station in Mumbai would not cover any offence under Section 499 IPC.

30. The fundamental basis on which the jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Article 32 is the filing of multiple FIRs and complaints in various States arising from the same cause of action. The cause of action was founded on a programme which was telecast on R. Bharat on 21-4-2020. FIRs and criminal complaints were lodged against the petitioner in the States of Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Telangana and Jharkhand besides the Union Territories of Jammu and Kashmir. The law concerning multiple criminal proceedings on the same cause of action has been analysed in a judgment of this Court in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala [T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC 181 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 1048] (“T.T. Antony”). Speaking for a two-Judge Bench, Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J. interpreted the provisions of Section 154 and cognate provisions of the CrPC including Section 173 and observed : (SCC pp. 196-97, para 20)

“20. … under the scheme of the provisions of Sections 154, 155, 156, 157, 162, 169, 170 and 173 CrPC, only the earliest or the first information in regard to the commission of a cognizable offence satisfies the requirements of Section 154 CrPC. Thus, there can be no second FIR and consequently there can be no fresh investigation on receipt of every subsequent information in respect of the same cognizable offence or the same occurrence or incident giving rise to one or more cognizable offences. On receipt of information about a cognizable offence or an incident giving rise to a cognizable offence or offences and on entering the FIR in the station house diary, the officer in charge of a police station has to investigate not merely the cognizable offence reported in the FIR but also other connected offences found to have been committed in the course of the same transaction or the same occurrence and file one or more reports as provided in Section 173 CrPC.”

31. The Court held that “there can be no second FIR” where the information concerns the same cognizable offence alleged in the first FIR or the same occurrence or incident which gives rise to one or more cognizable offences. This is due to the fact that the investigation covers within its ambit not just the alleged cognizable offence, but also any other connected offences that may be found to have been committed. This Court held that once an FIR postulated by the provisions of Section 154 has been recorded, any information received after the commencement of investigation cannot form the basis of a second FIR as doing so would fail to comport with the scheme of the CrPC. The Court observed : (T.T. Antony case [T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC 181 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 1048] , SCC p. 196, para 18)

“18. … All other information 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.”

37. In the present case, all the FIRs or complaints which have been lodged in diverse jurisdictions arise out of one and the same incident — the broadcast by the petitioner on 21-4-2020 on R. Bharat. The broadcast is the foundation of the allegation that offences have been committed under the provisions of Sections 153, 153-A, 153-B, 295-A, 298, 500, 504 and 506 IPC. During the course of the hearing, this Court has had the occasion, with the assistance of the learned Senior Counsel, to peruse the several complaints that were filed in relation to the incident dated 21-4-2020. They are worded in identical terms and leave no manner of doubt that an identity of cause of action underlies the allegations levelled against the petitioner on the basis of the programme which was broadcast on 21-4-2020. Moreover, the language, content and sequencing of paragraphs and their numbering is identical. It was in this backdrop that Mr Kapil Sibal, learned Senior Counsel fairly submitted (in our view correctly) that this Court may proceed to quash all the other FIRs and complaints lodged in diverse jurisdictions in the States, leaving open, however, the investigation in respect of FIR No. 238 of 2020 dated 22-4-2020 transferred from Police Station Sadar, District Nagpur City to N.M. Joshi Marg Police Station in Mumbai.

59. As we have noted earlier, multiple FIRs and complaints have been filed against the petitioner in several States and in the Union Territories of Jammu and Kashmir. By the interim order of this Court dated 24-4-2020 [Arnab Ranjan Goswami v. Union of India, (2020) 14 SCC 51] , further steps in regard to all the complaints and FIRs, save and except for the investigation of the FIR lodged at Police Station Sadar, District Nagpur City were stayed. The FIR at Police Station Sadar, District Nagpur City has been transferred to N.M. Joshi Marg Police Station in Mumbai. We find merit in the submission of Mr Kapil Sibal, learned Senior Counsel that fairness in the administration of criminal justice would warrant the exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 32 to quash all other FIRs (save and except for the one under investigation in Mumbai). However, we do so only having regard to the principles which have been laid down by this Court in T.T. Antony [T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC 181 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 1048] .

The filing of multiple FIRs arising out of the same telecast of the show hosted by the petitioner is an abuse of the process and impermissible. We clarify that the quashing of those FIRs would not amount to the expression of any opinion by this Court on the merits of the FIR which is being investigated by N.M. Joshi Marg Police Station in Mumbai.”

(B) Amish Devgan v. Union of India, (2021) 1 SCC 1 : (2021) 1 SCC (Cri) 247 : 2020 SCC OnLine SC 994

“123. In Arnab Ranjan Goswami case [Arnab Ranjan Goswami v. Union of India, (2020) 14 SCC 12] , the proceedings in the subsequent FIRs were quashed as the counsel for the complainants in the said case had joined the petitioner in making the said prayer. However, in the present case, we would like to follow the ratio in T.T. Antony [T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC 181 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 1048] which is to the effect that the subsequent FIRs would be treated as statements under Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This is clear from the following dictum in T.T. Antony [T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC 181 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 1048] : (SCC pp. 195-96, para 18)

“18. An information given under sub-section (1) of Section 154 CrPC is commonly known as first information report (FIR) though this term is not used in the Code. It is a very important document. And as its nickname suggests it is the earliest and the first information of a cognizable offence recorded by an officer in charge of a police station. It sets the criminal law in motion and marks the commencement of the investigation which ends up with the formation of opinion under Section 169 or 170 CrPC, as the case may be, and forwarding of a police report under Section 173 CrPC. It is quite possible and it happens not infrequently that more informations than one are given to a police officer in charge of a police station in respect of the same incident involving one or more than one cognizable offences. In such a case he need not enter every one of them in the station house diary and this is implied in Section 154 CrPC. Apart from a vague information by a phone call or a cryptic telegram, the information first entered in the station house diary, kept for this purpose, by a police officer in charge of a police station is the first information report — FIR postulated by Section 154 CrPC. 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 irregular; in such a case alteration of the provision of law in the first FIR is the proper course to adopt. Let us consider a different situation in which H having killed W, his wife, informs the police that she is killed by an unknown person or knowing that W is killed by his mother or sister, H owns up the responsibility and during investigation the truth is detected; it does not require filing of fresh FIR against H — the real offender — who can be arraigned in the report under Section 173(2) or 173(8) CrPC, as the case may be. It is of course permissible for the investigating officer to send up a report to the Magistrate concerned even earlier that investigation is being directed against the person suspected to be the accused.”

(emphasis in original)

124. This would be fair and just to the other complainants at whose behest the other FIRs were caused to be registered, for they would be in a position to file a protest petition in case a closure/final report is filed by the police. Upon filing of such protest petition, the Magistrate would be obliged to consider their contention(s), and may even reject the closure/final report and take cognizance of the offence and issue summons to the accused. Otherwise, such complainants would face difficulty in contesting the closure report before the Magistrate, despite and even if there is enough material to make out a case of commission of an offence.

125. Lastly, we would also like to clarify that Section

179 of the Criminal Procedure Code permits prosecution of cases in the court within whose local jurisdiction the offence has been committed or consequences have ensued. Section 186 of the Criminal Procedure Code relates to cases where two separate charge-sheets have been filed on the basis of separate FIRs and postulates that the prosecution would proceed where the first charge-sheet has been filed on the basis of the FIR that is first in point of time. Principle underlying Section 186 can be applied at the pre- charge-sheet stage, that is, post registration of FIR but before charge-sheet is submitted to the Magistrate. In such cases ordinarily the first FIR, that is, the FIR registered first in point of time, should be treated as the main FIR and others as statements under Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code. However, in exceptional cases and for good reasons, it will be open to the High Court or this Court, as the case may be, to treat the subsequently registered FIR as the principal FIR. However, this should not cause any prejudice, inconvenience or harassment to either the victims, witnesses or the person who is accused. We have clarified the aforesaid position to avoid any doubt or debate on the said aspect.

126. In view of our findings, we accept the prayer made in the last amended writ petition and transfer all FIRs listed at Serial Nos. 2 to 7 in para 3 (supra) to Police Station Dargah, Ajmer, Rajasthan, where the first FIR was registered. We do not find any good ground or special reason to transfer the FIRs to Noida, Uttar Pradesh. Statement of the complainant/informant forming the basis of the transferred FIRs would be considered as statement under Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code and be proceeded with. Compliance with the above directions to transfer papers would be made by the police station concerned within four weeks when they receive a copy of this order. The above directions would equally apply to any other FIR/complaint predicated on the same telecast/episode.

Operative directions

128. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we decline and reject the prayer of the petitioner for quashing of the FIRs but have granted interim protection to the petitioner against arrest subject to his joining and cooperating in investigation till completion of the investigation in terms of our directions in paras 120 and 126 above. We have however accepted the prayer of the petitioner for transfer of all pending FIRs in relation to and arising out of the telecast/episode dated 15-6-2020 to Police Station Dargah, Ajmer, Rajasthan, where the first FIR was registered. On the third prayer, we have asked the States concerned to examine the threat perception of the petitioner and family members and take appropriate steps as may be necessary.”

(C) Satinder Singh Bhasin v. State of U.P., (2023) 14 SCC 805 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2155

“13. Accordingly, following the principle enunciated by this Court in Amish Devgan v. Union of India [Amish Devgan v. Union of India, (2021) 1 SCC 1 : (2021) 1 SCC (Cri) 247] , and in the peculiar facts of the present case, we, in exercise of power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, accede to the relief claimed in terms of the prayer clause pertaining to consolidation of all FIRs, including registered in New Delhi, with FIR No. 206/2019 as the principal FIR and for being proceeded with in accordance with law. For, we are also of the opinion that multiplicity of the proceedings will not be in the larger public interest as well.

14. It is brought to our notice that investigation in respect of some FIRs has been completed and even charge-sheet(s) have been filed by the Special Investigation Team (SIT), constituted by the State of Uttar Pradesh in respect of all these cases. In terms of this order, the charge-sheet(s) filed in other cases shall stand merged with the charge-sheet filed in the criminal case arising out of FIR No. 206/2019 dated 12-2-2019.

15. Further, it will be open to the investigating officer in the case registered as FIR No. 206/2019, to file a supplementary charge-sheet which will be a composite charge-sheet to deal with all the statements collated during the investigation in the other cases, including the statement of complainant in the respective FIR as being statement under Section 161CrPC. The supplementary charge-sheet to be filed on the basis of the entire record so collected during the investigation in the respective cases will be then made the basis to proceed for trial against the petitioner(s) and named accused therein.

16. Furthermore, the trial shall proceed as per law from the stage of filing of the supplementary charge-sheet. In case the courts have already taken cognizance on the basis of charge-sheet(s) filed in respective cases, those cases in terms of this order shall stand transferred and merged with the trial of the case arising from FIR No. 206/2019.

27. It is brought to our notice that investigation in respect of some FIRs has been completed and even charge-sheet(s) have been filed by the Special Investigation Team (SIT), constituted by the State of Uttar Pradesh in respect of all these cases. In terms of this order, the charge-sheet(s) filed in other cases shall stand merged with the charge-sheet filed in criminal case arising out of FIR No. 353/2015.”

(D) Radhey Shyam v. State of Haryana, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1935

“5. Following the exposition of this Court in Amish Devgan v. Union of India4, we deem it appropriate in exercise of power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, to direct clubbing of all the FIRs, which can proceed together for one trial as far as possible, as we are of the opinion that multiplicity of the proceedings will not be in the larger public interest. We may hasten to add that all the States have no objection for abiding with such dispensation.

6. The FIRs, referred to above, filed in different States under the Penal Code, 1860, can proceed as one set of complaint treating FIR No. 710/2018 dated 30.08.2018 as the principal FIR. The FIRs registered subsequently in the State of Telangana and other States (except States of Haryana, Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra), shall stand clubbed with the stated FIR No. 710/2018 and treated as statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The investigating officer in criminal case arising from FIR No. 710/2018 will be free to file supplementary charge sheet after collation of all the records concerning other FIRs, which are clubbed in terms of this order. In the event, the Investigating Officer in other FIRs had already filed the Police report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the concerned Court and the concerned Court had taken cognizance thereof, the said FIRs and criminal cases would also stand transferred and merged/clubbed along with case arising from FIR No. 710/2018, to be proceeded with in accordance with law. The investigating officer in the stated case (Principal case) will be free to file supplementary charge sheet on the basis of material collated during investigation of other FIRs.

7. As regards the FIRs registered in the States having special enactments, the first FIR5 registered in the concerned State be treated as principal criminal case; and the remaining FIRs and criminal case in that State shall stand clubbed/merged with the principal FIR/criminal case and proceeded as one case, including with liberty to the Investigating Officer in connection with the principal FIR to file supplementary charge sheet after collation of all records.”

(E) Abhishek Singh Chauhan v. Union of India, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1936

“4. The cases in the concerned States, to be tried by the Special Court can be conveniently clubbed, for being tried together as has been directed in the case of Radhey Shyam v. State of Haryana in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 75/2020 vide Order dated 12.05.2022.

5. Following the exposition of this Court in Amish Devgan v. Union of India1, we deem it appropriate in exercise of power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, to direct clubbing of all the FIRs State-wise, which can proceed together for one trial as far as possible, as we are of the opinion that multiplicity of the proceedings will not be in the larger public interest. We may hasten to add that the concerned States have no objection for abiding with such dispensation.

6. In other words, the offence registered in the State of West Bengal being RC/40/S/2014 dated 05.06.2015 registered with CBI/SCB/SIT, Kolkata, will proceed before the concerned Court in the State of West Bengal independently. Similarly, the FIR registered at Pindwara, Sirohi, State of Rajasthan being FIR No. 338/2018 dated 12.09.2018 shall proceed before the concerned jurisdictional Court in that State itself being the only case registered in connection with the Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) offences in that State and cannot be clubbed with the cases pending in other States, as the same will have to proceed under the special enactment of the concerned State.

7. As regards three cases registered in the State of Maharashtra, the same will have to proceed under the special enactment2 before the special Court. It can be conveniently proceeded together. Accordingly, the subsequently registered FIRs being FIR Nos. 533/2017 dated 29.07.2017 registered at Nahol, Sholapur and 467/2017 dated 08.08.2017 registered at Bijapur Naka, Sholapur, need to be clubbed with FIR No. 552/2016 dated 15.04.2016 registered at Ramnagar, Chandrapur.

8. On the same pattern, the subsequently registered two FIRs3 in the State of Madhya Pradesh need to proceed together with FIR No. 915/2016 dated 09.11.2016 registered at Kotwali, Sehore being the earliest FIR registered under the special enactment4, before the jurisdictional special Court at Sehore.

9. Similarly, the subsequently registered FIRs5 in the State of Chhattisgarh need to be clubbed with FIR No. 146/2017 dated 04.04.2017 registered at Surajpur, Distt. Surajpur under the special enactment6 as applicable to the State of Chhattisgarh, to be tried by the jurisdictional special Court at Surajpur, Distt. Surajpur.

10. In each of the States, where directions for clubbing of FIRs is being passed, the subsequently registered FIRs shall be treated as statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). The investigating officer in criminal case arising from the first FIR in the concerned State, as referred to above, will be free to file supplementary charge-sheet after collation of all the records concerning other FIRs in the respective States, which are clubbed in terms of this order. In the event, the investigating officer in other FIRs had already filed the police report under Section 173 of the Cr. P.C. before the concerned Court and the concerned Court had taken cognizance thereof, the said FIRs and criminal cases would also stand transferred and merged/clubbed alongwith the first criminal case7 registered in the respective State, as referred to above, to be proceeded with in accordance with law. The investigating officer in the stated case (principal case to which the subsequent FIRs would stand merged/clubbed), will be free to file supplementary charge-sheet on the basis of material collated during investigation of other FIRs.”

(F) Amanat Ali v. State of Karnataka, (2023) 14 SCC 801 : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1648

“6. The cases noted at Serial Nos. 5 and 6 have been registered by Gokul Road, Hubli, Karnataka Police and Dhadhara, Ghumla, Jharkhand, Police Station, respectively. Whereas the cases at Serial Nos. 1 to 4 are registered in the State of Madhya Pradesh and that too by different police stations. Suffice to note that first FIR came to be registered by Police Station Bank Note Press, Madhya Pradesh and three other FIRs have been registered in the districts of Guna, Indore and Khargone, respectively, at Madhya Pradesh.

8. Hence, following the principles laid down in Amish Devgan v. Union of India [Amish Devgan v. Union of India, (2021) 1 SCC 1 : (2021) 1 SCC (Cri) 247] we deem it appropriate to exercise power conferred under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to accede to the relief claimed to the extent of consolidation of the FIRs registered in the State of Madhya Pradesh for being tried together as one trial as far as possible, as we are of the opinion that multiplicity of the proceedings will not be in the larger public interest and the State also.”

(G) Sohan Lal Yogi v. State of Rajasthan, (S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 575/2023), judgment dated 29.03.2023.

“All the FIRs are against the same set of accused ventilating identical allegations of cheating. It would be in the interest of justice that these FIRs be investigated by one person. Multiple investigation by different Police Stations may lead to conflicting results and unnecessary harassment to the parties. Since most of FIRs were registered in Kota, the I.G., Kota range is directed to ensure investigation of all theses cases by an IPS Rank Officer having at least 5 years experience of working as an IPS. If no such Officer is available there, services of some other IPS may be taken after completion of formalities. It is made clear that FIR No.04/2022 registered with Police Station Gumanpura, Kota City is the lead FIR and the informant is husband of one of the Director of accused Company. Considering the facts aforesaid, it is directed that no coercive steps shall be taken against any of the petitioners above named till further order, provided all the petitioners shall fully co-operate with the investigation of these FIRs, petitioners shall provide their contact numbers to the Investigating Officer, so appointed. It is made clear that any subsequent FIR registered for the same matter shall also be investigated by the same person.”

(H) Akshay Kalla v. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Home Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, reported as (2024:RJ-JD:41413).

“11. In order to ensure seamless clubbing, learned District and Sessions Judge, Pali is requested to make necessary arrangements by summoning the files/entire record from the places where they are pending presently, so as to immediately send all the material of the cases to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali for further trial. Once the FIRs are clubbed as above, the earliest of the FIR shall be treated as the principal FIR and the further trial shall proceed in the same accordingly.”

9. In the present matter, the petitioner has prayed as under:-

“It is most respectfully prayed that the present petition may kindly be allowed, and this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to:

i. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, quash all cases/FIRs mentioned in the chart (Annexure-23) and consequent proceedings, registered subsequent to registration of FIR No. 24/18 P.S. SOG, them being second FIR and direct them to be treated as supplementary charge-sheet in case no cr reg. case/104/2019 State of Rajasthan v. Virendra Modi & Ors arising out of FIR No. 24 dated 28.12.2018 registered at P.S. Special Operation Group (SOG), Jaipur pending before the Court of Learned Senior Civil Judge-cum-ACMM Communal Riots Jaipur cases,

ii. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, direct all present cases/FIRs wherein the investigations have yet not been concluded, further cases/FIRs to be transferred to the Respondent No.2 SOG to be merged with the ongoing investigation of FIR No 24/18, P.S. SOG.

iii. By an appropriate writ, order or direction as a supplement to prayers (i) & (ii) supra, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the clubbing/merger of all cases mentioned in the chart (Annexure- 23), as also other cases which may have been or may be registered subsequent thereto, with case no Cr Reg.Case/104/2019 arising out of FIR No. 24/2018 dated 28.12.2018 registered at P.S. Special Operation Group (SOG), Jaipur.

iv By an appropriate writ, order or direction, pass such other or further order(s) or direction(s) as this Hon'ble court may deem fit in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioner.”

10. Thus, it is discernible that the main thrust of the petitioner’s prayer is upon the issue of multiple investigations being conducted by multiple agencies, in one matter. I may hasten to note here that in course of the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners earnestly also urged that all the FIRs since arise out of same cause, deserve to be clubbed together.

11. The Government had also realised the issue so concerned, related to the investigation of like matters, and then in its wisdom issued circulars to the effect. The first circular dated 06.01.2019 titled "This content is in vernacular language. Kindly email us at info@legitquest.com for this content."

12. The case at hand delves into similar intricacies, this contention in itself raises several issues, particularly in a case like this where there is a direct connection between the incidents described in the multiple FIRs. After due consideration of the set law in this regard in contiguity with my understanding of the same, I am of the firm opinion that when related FIRs are not clubbed, it often leads to fragmented investigations, which can compromise the fairness and thoroughness of the process. Ensuring a unified investigation in such a situation seems to be in the interest of justice. When multiple FIRs are filed for connected offenses or incidents, it can lead to multiple investigative agencies being involved. Different police stations or jurisdictions may investigate the same set independently, potentially missing critical connections and failing to piece together the full scope of the crime concerned. By allowing the clubbing of FIRs, the investigation can be unified under one investigative body. This can help the police to conduct a more thorough and comprehensive investigation, ensuring that all related facts are considered and the truth is uncovered. A single, cohesive investigation would also help avoid duplicity of effort, such as multiple interrogations of the same witnesses or redundant procedures. At this juncture, it is also pertinent to note that the investigative agencies have finite resources in terms of manpower, time, and finances. Handling multiple FIRs separately, especially in complex cases with overlapping issues, can strain the resources of the police. By clubbing related FIRs, resources can be streamlined, enabling investigators to focus their attention on the case as a whole rather than spread thin across separate cases. This can lead to a more efficient and effective investigation, ensuring that the law enforcement agencies can reach a proper conclusion more quickly.

13. Moreover, another focal issue to be taken into consideration is to ensure the prevention of disjointed legal processes. When related FIRs are not clubbed together, multiple courts might end up handling different aspects of the same case. This can lead to inconsistent rulings, contradictory orders, and confusion regarding the continuity of legal proceedings. In such a scenario, justice may be delayed or compromised as the different parts of the case are handled separately. The clubbing of FIRs ensures that one court can oversee all aspects of the case, leading to a consistent and orderly process that allows for a more coherent presentation of evidence and legal arguments.

14. Additionally, in cases where multiple FIRs are filed, victims and witnesses may be required to repeat their statements to different police officers or attend separate hearings in different courts. This can lead to harassment, emotional distress, and confusion for those already affected by the crime. Clubbing of FIRs minimizes this inconvenience and ensures that witnesses and victims are not subjected to repeated questioning or procedures. A unified investigation and court process also offer a more streamlined path for the victims to seek justice, helping them feel that the legal system is working in their favor.

15. Most importantly of all, when a single investigative agency is entrusted with handling a case that involves multiple related FIRs, it becomes easier to hold the agency accountable for the investigation’s quality. If different agencies are involved, there is often a diffusion of responsibility and dilution of authority, and it can be challenging to determine which agency or officer is accountable for specific investigative actions. A singular agency handling the entire investigation ensures that there is clarity in terms of responsibility and decision-making, ultimately leading to more thorough and focused investigative work.

16. As can be gathered from the precedents so cited above, the Indian judiciary has recognized the importance of a fair and thorough investigation in many rulings. In some instances, the courts have allowed the clubbing of FIRs, particularly when it is in the interest of justice to do so. This not only prevents fragmentation of the case but also helps in preserving the integrity of the investigation and ensures that justice is served efficiently. Investigations can be resource-intensive, both in terms of time and manpower. When multiple agencies handle separate investigations, resources are often spread thin, leading to inefficiencies. Police officers and investigative agencies may have to duplicate efforts, conduct repetitive interviews, and re-analyze the same evidence. This not only wastes valuable time and resources but also delays the resolution of the case.

17. By allowing the clubbing of FIRs, resources can be better allocated. A single agency can take control of the entire investigation, consolidating information, and conducting a thorough analysis of all the evidence. This optimizes the use of law enforcement resources and speeds up the investigation process, allowing the case to reach its logical conclusion in a timely manner.

18. In the field of criminal investigations, the principle of seeking truth and ensuring justice is paramount. However, the process of uncovering the facts and drawing conclusions from the evidence is inherently complex and subject to multiple variables. One significant factor that impacts the investigation process is the thought process of the investigators involved. It is crucial to recognize that each person involved in the investigation process brings their own thought process, perspective, and cognitive biases. This divergence in thought processes becomes particularly problematic when multiple investigating officers are involved in the same case, especially if the investigation is complex and spans different jurisdictions or areas of expertise. Each officer's individual approach can lead to conflicting opinions, overlooked evidence, and inconsistencies in the investigation. These variations, if not managed properly, can derail the investigation, complicating the process and ultimately preventing the investigation from reaching its logical conclusion.

19. To understand how differing thought processes can complicate investigations, it is essential first to acknowledge the human element in criminal investigations. Investigating officers, like all individuals, are influenced by a variety of psychological and cognitive factors that affect how they process information. Investigators are not immune to biases. Cognitive biases, the tendency to search for, interpret, and remember information that confirms one’s preconceptions or anchoring bias, the reliance on the first piece of information received can cloud their judgment. As each officer may pursue their own line of investigation, it is possible for these theories to contradict each other. As a result, officers may favor certain lines of inquiry or evidence that align with their initial theories, while overlooking contradictory evidence that may lead to a different conclusion. If these different leads are not properly coordinated, it could lead to conflicting conclusions, and the investigation could lose focus. This fragmentation significantly slows down the process of reaching the actual conclusion and impedes the clarity needed to arrive at justice.

20. Officers bring their own personal experiences to the investigative process. An officer who has worked in a particular jurisdiction for years may develop an instinct for identifying patterns of criminal behavior that differ from an officer new to the field. Their previous experiences may lead to different conclusions based on the same set of facts. Evidence is not always clear-cut, and the interpretation of facts can vary depending on the officer's perspective. For example, witness statements may be contradictory, and different officers may interpret the same testimony in different ways. Similarly, physical evidence may be ambiguous, and the interpretation of such evidence can be influenced by an officer’s personal knowledge, assumptions, or investigative theories.

21. Each investigator may develop their own theory of the crime based on their interpretation of the evidence and their biases. In a case involving multiple officers, these theories can diverge significantly. These divergent opinions can lead to internal conflict, confusion, and ultimately a disjointed investigation. For example, one investigator may pursue a suspect based on circumstantial evidence, while another may believe that the evidence points in a different direction. If these officers do not collaborate effectively, it can result in a lack of cohesion in the investigation, making it harder to reach a single, unified conclusion.

22. When multiple officers conduct separate interviews with the same witnesses, there is a risk of inconsistencies in the way the testimonies are recorded or interpreted. Different officers may ask different questions, use different techniques to extract information, or even interpret the same statement in divergent ways. This can lead to confusion and contradiction in witness statements, further complicating the investigation. If different officers have different perspectives on the credibility or significance of a witness statement, it can undermine the overall reliability of the investigation. Moreover, when multiple officers engage with witnesses, the possibility of influencing or contaminating testimony also increases. Without a cohesive, centralized approach to witness interviews, the integrity of the investigation can be compromised.

23. Investigations involve critical decisions regarding the collection of evidence, the direction of the inquiry, and the decision to arrest or charge individuals. When multiple officers are involved, each with their own approach and ideas, decision- making can become disjointed. One officer may push for a certain line of inquiry, while another may believe that pursuing a different avenue is more productive. The lack of coordination between officers can cause delays and lead to contradictory actions, further impeding the progress of the investigation. The investigation of a crime is a complex and nuanced process, and the thought processes of investigating officers play a significant role in shaping its outcome. While diversity in thought and approach can be valuable in some contexts, when it comes to criminal investigations, diverging perspectives can lead to confusion, inconsistency, and inefficiency. A fragmented investigation, where different officers with different ideas work separately, can complicate the search for truth and undermine the integrity of the criminal justice system.

24. At this juncture, it is pertinent to make an observation that is quite discernible upon an extensive scrutiny of the material on record, that there are conflicting opinions of the various Investigating Agencies in connection with the same focal issue revolving around the petitioner and other accused persons, the same are provided hereinunder:-

•  On 18.9.2021, Police Station Pilani, District Jhunjhunu submitted Closure Report FR 1/24 in FIR 0128/21 before ACIM Pilani and observed that pursuant to the investigation it is found that there was no default of any payment to any investor by Petitioner whilst managing the affairs of ACCSL and now ACCSL is under liquidation and cases of default of payment have arisen and directed the claimant to claim the repayment from Liquidator and accordingly found the matter of civil nature .
• On 31.10.2019 Police Station Kuchaman City submitted Closure Report FR 83/2019 in FIR 0244/2019 before CJJD)JM Kuchaman City wherein an investor who was the landlord of the branch office of ACCSL was claiming for repayment of his investment and due rent Atter investigation, the investigating officer found that the due amount is lying in the account of ACCSL and since the Petitioners are in custody, payment thereof is not possible and such there is no syphoning of his amount, the complainant may obtain the amount with due process of law and hence it's a commercial matter and is of civil nature
• On 9.12.2021 police Station Singhana, District Jhunjhunu, submitted charge-sheet 01/2021 in FIR 0219/2019 before MJM Buhana and observed that SOG earlier issued direction vide letter dated 20:06:2019 to forward all the FIR's regarding default of payment by ACCSL to SOG in FIR 24/2018 and further observed that SOG has completed investigation of the FIRs across Rajasthan. In the charge- sheet, Singhana Police station arrayed only Petitioner No. 4 & 7 and arrested them and did not find offence against rest of the Petitioners and submitted its final charge-sheet.
• On 23.12.2021 Police Station Paladi M. District Sirohi, submitted charge-sheet 01/2021 in FIR 0033/2020 before ACJM Court Sheoganj and observed that during the investigation they applied for obtaining the required records and documents before Central Registrar, Cooperative Societies New Delhi, however, they obtained only photocopies of documents therefrom and enclosed them along with the charge-sheet and found that all the original records. documents are seized and are in possession of SOG in FIR 24/2018 which SOG have annexed in the charge-sheet and hence they applied and obtained certified photocopy of the SOG charge-sheet and enclosed it in their charge-sheet.
•  On 09.09.2021 Police Station Subhash Nagar, District Bhilwara, submitted charge-sheet 01/2021 in FIR 0451/2019 and observed that though we have enclosed the photo copy of the SOG charge-sheet in FIR 24/2018 along with this charge-sheet, however no offence is made out against accused Damayanti Bhandari, Kamlesh Chaudhary (who is accused in SOG charge-sheet and enlarged on bail) and Petitioner No. 2 (who is on interim bait by order of this Hon'ble Court)
•  On 9.05.2021 Police Station Devnagar, District Jodhpur submitted charge-sheet 01/2021 in FIR 0021/2021 and reiterated the original record is seized by SOG in FIR 24/2018 and bence a copy of the charge-sheet obtained by SOG is enclosed. Further, it is evident from the SOG charge- sheet that invested deposit of the present lady complainant has been syphoned by Petitioners.

25. Therefore, it is imperative that the investigation process be unified. By consolidating the responsibility for an investigation under a single officer or agency, the likelihood of conflicting theories, overlooked evidence, and delayed conclusions is minimized. A coherent, centralized approach ensures that the investigation is thorough, fair, and leads to a logical and just conclusion.

26. Lastly, it is also pertinent to observe that the involvement of multiple investigating agencies in the investigation of a particular offence can introduce significant uncertainty during the examination of these various officers at the trial stage. This scenario arises primarily due to the overlapping responsibilities, differing approaches, and at times conflicting objectives of the agencies involved. In cases where multiple agencies are tasked with the investigation, it can lead to a fragmented and inconsistent presentation of facts, making it difficult for the court to discern a clear narrative. During the trial, when different officers from different agencies are called to testify, their testimonies may not align in terms of facts, sequences, or interpretations of events. This inconsistency can confuse the court and lead to challenges in establishing a coherent and reliable version of the events in question.

27. In conclusion, the involvement of multiple investigating agencies has significant drawbacks that could lead to uncertainty during the trial stage. The risk of conflicting testimonies might in all probability make it difficult for the court to reach a fair and just conclusion. Effective coordination, clear communication, and standardized procedures are essential to minimize the negative impacts of multiple agencies working on the same case. The likelihood of inconsistencies in the testimonials of the officers concerned, before the trial Court, might also render the trial deficient, thereby resulting in an uncertainty with regard to the conclusion of the trial.

28. In the matter at hand, the registration of the subsequent FIR(s) are all woven by a common thread and are all intertwined and interlinked with the first FIR, i.e. FIR no. 24/2018. This is to subunit that all the subsequent FIRs and 7 consequential proceedings therein with respect to all the member investors of Adarsh Credit Cooperative Society residing in the State of Rajasthan have already been investigated into by the SOG in its parent FIR 24/2018. Eventually, even the Department of Home had issued guidelines that the investigation in the matter relating to the ACCSL Cooperative society would be investigated into solely by the SOG. Thus, in furtherance to this directive, once the SOG had gotten all the registered cases across the state transferred to it and thereafter when even a Final Report had been filed in the case, wherein, the allegations in entirety against the petitioner had already been investigated into, the mandate of law did not require the reverting back of the matter to the local police stations. Additionally and primarily, the investigations of all the FIRs pertaining to a single set of facts must culminate into one Trial, especially when the SOG in the main case has already investigated the total sum amount, which is now being investigated into, in pieces by other police stations across the State.

29. Thus, this Court acknowledges that in a case like the one at hand, where two or more FIRs are connected and relate to the same series of events or offenses, there may be a justification for their consolidation. The ultimate aim of any criminal investigation is to uncover the truth and deliver justice, whilst at the same time ensuring mitigation of any further litigation arising from the case concerned. The legal provisions, including those governing FIRs, should, therefore, be interpreted in a manner that aids in this objective rather than creating procedural hurdles. The clubbing of FIRs under Indian law should be allowed as a means to ensure that investigations are conducted thoroughly, fairly, and with proper accountability. It would streamline the investigative process, prevent the fragmentation of cases, and ensure that all related evidence is considered holistically. By consolidating related FIRs, investigative agencies can focus their resources effectively, avoid harassment of witnesses and victims, and prevent delays in the legal process. The primary goal of the criminal justice system is to reach the truth and deliver justice, and the clubbing of FIRs is a step toward achieving this goal in complex cases where multiple incidents are interlinked. Therefore, it is imperative that the law recognizes and provides for the clubbing of FIRs and conduction of investigation by one Investigating Agency only, so as to allow for a more efficient, effective, and elaborate investigation.

30. Once the offences have already been inquired into, investigated or tried by the same/common Investigating Agency or Court, the continuation of the multiplicity of proceedings would be an anathema to the settled provisions of law. At this juncture, it is pertinent to take note of the fact that all the original documents/investments made with ACCSL across Rajasthan have been seized and are currently in the possession of the SOG. Therefore, the Trial Court pursuant to the cognizance order, is already acquainted with all investments across Rajasthan. The challans filed by all other Investigating Agencies are based on the investigation conducted by the SOG so much so that most of the charge-sheets filed specifically mention this as well. Even on merits, all the cases that have been registered against the petitioner are regarding the same offence and arising out of the same cause of action. For this reason alone, the cases must be clubbed together as the continuation of the other proceedings would lead to multifarious opinions by different courts across the country, which may even be in conflict with each other, regarding the same subject matter. Subjecting the petitioner to several other litigations would be gross abuse of the process of law.

31. Thus, having taken into consideration all of the facts and circumstances, as also the trite law in this regard, this petition is partly allowed with the directions as under:

"1. The investigation of all the FIRs (as given under table at Para

2 (viii)) arsing out of the transactions finding their roots in the acts of investments by different member investors in relation to their transactions with the ACCSL, excluding the cases where the investigation has already been concluded, shall be conducted by the team of SOG under the supervision of a senior officer and if possible, by the officer who was assigned and hence conducted the investigation of FIR No.24/2018.

2. The investigation of any and all the other FIRs which may be registered in future, in relation to the present factual matrix, shall also be conducted by the SOG under the supervision of a senior officer and if possible, by the official who conducted the investigation of FIR No. 24/2018.

3. The SOG while conducting the investigation into the matter can include and involve one Police Officer from every Police Station concerned, where an FIR has ever been lodged with respect to the ACCSL.

4. The SOG after completion of the investigation shall submit its Final Report before the concerned Judicial Magistrate, where the Final Report would have been ideally filed as per the jurisdiction of the concerned Police Station where the case was registered.

5. After the filing of the Final Report before the Judicial Magistrate, the Petitioner would be at liberty, if required, to avail any other appropriate remedy available to her for clubbing of trial proceedings or otherwise, before the Competent Court.

6. To ensure an efficient, fair and impartial investigation in these numerous FIRs, the State Government shall provide all necessary infrastructure to the SOG, as is required by them.

7. The statements of the informants in each individual case be recorded by the team of SOG at the place where the concerned informant is residing and the address of which has been provided to the authorities by the informant and shall proceed with the investigation as per the procedure prescribed.

8. Considering the detailed facts narrated in this order, it is directed that no coercive steps shall be taken against any of the petitioners above named, in the cases which are being assigned to the SOG by this order, without issuing notices to them. The petitioners are directed to fully cooperate with the investigation of these FIRs."

32. In view of the order passed in the main petition, the stay application as well as pending application/s, if any, also stand disposed of.