Court holds that identical allegations of non-payment of deposit maturity amounts form one continuous transaction; subsequent FIRs to be treated as statements and transferred to the principal case.
The Allahabad High Court has held that multiple FIRs lodged by different complainants against persons linked to LUCC Company/Society, all arising from identical allegations of non-payment of maturity amounts, cannot be allowed to proceed independently when they satisfy the “test of sameness.”
A Division Bench comprising Justice Chandra Dhari Singh and Justice Tarun Saxena disposed of a writ petition filed by Bharat Verma, who sought clubbing of all subsequent FIRs with the first FIR registered on 18 July 2024 at Kotwali Lalitpur. The petitioner argued that the complaints were substantially identical, arose from the same cause of action, and were being used to harass him through multiple proceedings in different police stations.
The Court examined a comparative chart of FIRs filed across various police stations in Lalitpur and noted that the allegations, the nature of the offence, the accused persons’ role, and the underlying transaction were essentially the same. The complainants had allegedly invested money in LUCC on assurances that their deposits would double after five years, but upon maturity, the amounts were not returned. According to the Court, the foundation of all the FIRs was one and the same, and the allegations disclosed continuity of action, unity of purpose, and a common design.
Relying heavily on Supreme Court precedents including T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, Babubhai v. State of Gujarat, Anju Chaudhary v. State of Uttar Pradesh, and Amit Katyal v. State of Haryana, the High Court reiterated that there is no absolute bar on a second FIR, but a successive FIR cannot be sustained if it relates to the same incident or same transaction. The Court said the decisive factor is the “test of sameness” — whether the later FIR concerns a distinct occurrence or merely repeats allegations already covered by the first FIR.
The Bench rejected the State’s contention that the FIRs could not be clubbed merely because they were lodged by different complainants in different police stations. It held that territorial differences alone do not change the character of the allegations when the case is rooted in one continuing transaction involving the same company and the same alleged modus operandi.
In its operative directions, the Court ordered that FIR dated 18 July 2024 in Case Crime No. 612 of 2024 at Police Station Kotwali Lalitpur be treated as the principal FIR. All subsequent FIRs and related proceedings arising from the same allegations are to be clubbed with the principal FIR, and their contents are to be treated as statements under Section 161 CrPC / Section 180 BNSS.
The Court further directed that all subsequent FIRs be transferred to the police station where the principal FIR is lodged, provided charge-sheets have not already been filed. Where cognizance has already been taken in any such subsequent case, those cases too shall stand transferred and be tried by the court having jurisdiction over the principal FIR.
With these directions, the writ petition was disposed of.
Bottom Line :
Multiple FIRs arising out of identical allegations regarding non-payment of deposit maturity amounts by the same company and its agents, though lodged by different complainants at different police stations, cannot be permitted to proceed independently when they satisfy the test of sameness; first FIR to be treated as principal FIR and subsequent FIRs to be clubbed and treated as statements under Section 161 CrPC/Section 180 BNSS.
Statutory provision(s): Sections 154, 156, 161, 162, 173, 482 CrPC; Sections 173, 175, 180, 193, 528 BNSS; Sections 111, 318, 61(2), 352, 351(3), 336(3), 340(2), 318(4), 338 BNS; Articles 226, 227 Constitution of India
Bharat Verma v. State of U.P., (Allahabad)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2985416
