Supreme Court Denies Quashing of Multiple FIRs Against Merchant Seaman, Apex Court Declines Relief Under Article 32, Emphasizes High Court Jurisdiction and Distinct Nature of FIRs
In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has dismissed a writ petition filed by Rutvij Bhagat Singh Wakhare, a merchant seaman, seeking the quashing of multiple First Information Reports (FIRs) lodged against him across different states. The petition was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, which the court noted is an extraordinary remedy exercised sparingly, primarily when fundamental rights are demonstrably violated.
The case involved multiple FIRs registered in Maharashtra, Karnataka, and Odisha, alleging cyber fraud where victims were deceived into transferring money to a bank account linked to Wakhare's proprietary concern. Despite the serious allegations, the Supreme Court, led by Justices Sanjay Karol and Augustine George Masih, determined that the facts did not warrant the extraordinary intervention of quashing the FIRs under Article 32.
The court emphasized that while Article 32 is a constitutional remedy, it should be invoked only in exceptional circumstances. Generally, petitioners are expected to seek relief from the High Court under Article 226 or Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The court noted that Wakhare failed to demonstrate any violation of fundamental rights or exceptional circumstances that would justify bypassing the established legal procedures.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court denied Wakhare’s alternative plea to consolidate the FIRs into a single investigation. The court found that each FIR pertained to distinct transactions with no continuity or unity of purpose, as the complainants were different individuals who suffered independent offences. The court highlighted the necessity of separate investigations to ensure a fair and effective probe, especially given the complexity of cyber frauds involving multiple jurisdictions and technological intricacies.
The court also addressed Wakhare’s health concerns, stating that personal difficulties cannot justify the consolidation of FIRs that disclose distinct offences. It underscored the importance of individual complainants being able to pursue their grievances without the added burden of a consolidated investigation across states.
The judgment reaffirms the Supreme Court's stance on maintaining procedural discipline and the importance of approaching appropriate forums for legal remedies. It also clarifies the legal principles governing the registration and consolidation of multiple FIRs, reiterating that they cannot be clubbed unless they arise from the same transaction or incident.
Bottom Line:
Writ petition under Article 32 for quashing multiple FIRs is maintainable only in exceptional circumstances where fundamental rights are demonstrably violated or compelling reasons exist. Otherwise, the petitioner must approach the High Court under Article 226 or Section 482 CrPC for relief.
Statutory provision(s): Article 32 of the Constitution of India, Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Sections 120B, 170, 389, 417, 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 43, 66(C), and 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
Rutvij Bhagat Singh Wakhare v. State of Maharashtra, (SC) : Law Finder Doc id # 2947186
