State (NCT) of Delhi Vs Khimji Bhai Jadeja (Supreme Court of India)
One Scam, Many Victims: Supreme Court Allows Single FIR for Mass Investor Cheating
Multiple Investor Cheating Can Form One Transaction: Single FIR Permissible Where Acts Flow from One Conspiracy
The case arose from a large-scale cheating scheme in which the accused allegedly induced thousands of investors to deposit money by falsely claiming divine powers to multiply their funds within a short time. Acting on such false representations and allurement, a total of 1,852 victims were allegedly cheated of about ₹46.40 crores, all pursuant to a common design and criminal conspiracy. One FIR was registered on the complaint of a single investor, while complaints of the remaining victims were treated as part of the same investigation.
The Supreme Court held that cheating of numerous investors pursuant to a single criminal conspiracy may constitute the “same transaction”, thereby permitting registration of a single FIR and a consolidated investigation, instead of mandating separate FIRs for each investor. Setting aside the Delhi High Court’s answers to the reference, the Court clarified that whether multiple acts amount to one transaction cannot be decided in the abstract or at the threshold, but must depend on the facts emerging from investigation.
The Court reiterated that the concept of “same transaction” under Sections 220(1) and 223 CrPC depends on factors such as unity of purpose or design, continuity of action, and proximity of time and place. These tests are not cumulative, and even where victims, amounts, and individual acts differ, the existence of a single overarching conspiracy may justify treating all acts as part of one transaction. In such cases, one FIR and one trial may be legally permissible, subject to the trial court’s satisfaction at the stage of framing charges.
The Court further held that the reference made by the Additional Sessions Judge was premature, as investigation was still ongoing. Since the charge-sheets disclosed an offence of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B IPC, the police were justified in registering one FIR and treating complaints of other victims as statements under Section 161 CrPC. Such victims are not remediless, as they retain the right to file protest petitions if a closure report is filed or if the accused are discharged.
On sentencing, the Court clarified that clubbing of offences does not cap punishment at the maximum for a single offence, and sentencing would be governed by Sections 71 IPC and 31 CrPC, depending on whether offences are tried together or separately. Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s view mandating separate FIRs, reaffirming that consolidation is permissible where the acts form part of the same transaction, leaving the final determination to the trial court.
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER
