The Supreme Court allowed the State's appeal against Delhi High Court judgment that answered reference questions regarding FIR registration in cheating cases involving multiple investors -- The High Court had held that each investor complaint must be registered as separate FIR and cannot be clubbed -- The Supreme Court reversed this finding, holding that police have discretion to investigate multiple complaints under single FIR when they arise from same criminal conspiracy -- The Court clarified that Section 219 CrPC provisions for joinder of charges apply at trial stage, not investigation stage -- The judgment emphasized practical considerations in investigating large-scale fraud cases with numerous victims
Criminal Law-- Code of criminal Procedure, 1973-- Sections 218(1), 219 and 395(2)-- Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023(BNSS)-- Section 242--Indian Penal Code, 1860- Sections 420 and 120B-- Reference at the instance of Session court to the High Court on three issues viz., (i) Cheating of large number of investors/depositors, so all such transactions can be amalgamated and clubbed into a single FIR by showing one investor as complainant and others as witnesses? (ii) If each case is treated a separate transaction then How many such transaction can be amalgamated in one charge sheet? (iii) Maximum punishment is 7 years if clubbing of transaction into one FIR with maximum punishment of 7 years ?-- Reference answere by High court-- Aggrieved-- Challenge to answers to reference by State-- Large number of victims of fraud-- Total 1852 complaints came to be lodged-- Cases referred-- Section 218(1) CRPC requires a distinct and separate charge for every distinct offence and each such separate charge should be tried separately-- Section 242 BNSS allows trial court to try three/five offences of same kind of commtted within a year-- Premature reference-- Investigation is not over-- Consolidation of FIR stage comes after completion of investigation-- Duty of Ld. Magistrate to ascertain whether acts of cheating to constitute part of same transaction-- Answers of High court set aside-- Appeal Allowed
Para-- 9, 19, 20, 21, 22
The Supreme Court allowed the State's appeal and reversed the Delhi High Court judgment -- The Court held that police have discretion to investigate multiple complaints under single FIR in cheating cases involving criminal conspiracy -- Each deposit does not automatically require separate FIR registration -- Section 219 CrPC provisions apply at trial stage for joinder of charges, not at investigation stage
Citation: 2026 LawText (SC) (01) 26
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. of 2026 (@ Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 9198 of 2019)
Date of Decision: 2026-01-06
Case Title: The Issue of whether in cases of cheating and criminal conspiracy involving multiple investors, each deposit constitutes a separate transaction requiring individual FIR registration or whether police can investigate multiple complaints under a single FIR
Before Judge: SANJAY KUMAR J. , ALOK ARADHE J.
Equivalent Citations: 2026 INSC 25
Advocate(s): Mr. R. Basant (Amicus Curiae)
Appellant: The State (NCT) of Delhi
Respondent: Khimji Bhai Jadeja
Nature of Litigation: Criminal appeal against Delhi High Court judgment answering reference questions under Section 395(2) CrPC regarding FIR registration procedures in cheating cases involving multiple investors
Remedy Sought: The State (NCT) of Delhi sought reversal of Delhi High Court judgment that mandated separate FIR registration for each investor complaint in cheating case
Filing Reason: The State was aggrieved by High Court judgment that answered reference questions in manner restricting police discretion in investigating multiple complaints under single FIR
Previous Decisions: Delhi High Court Division Bench answered reference questions holding that each investor complaint must be registered as separate FIR and cannot be clubbed -- The High Court stayed its judgment pending Supreme Court appeal
Issues: Whether each deposit by investor in cheating case constitutes separate transaction requiring individual FIR registration Whether police can amalgamate multiple complaints into single FIR by treating some complainants as witnesses Whether Section 219 CrPC restrictions apply at investigation stage or only at trial stage
Submissions/Arguments: State argued that police have discretion to investigate multiple complaints under single FIR when they arise from same criminal conspiracy -- Amicus Curiae supported practical approach to investigation in large-scale fraud cases -- Respondent did not appear to contest appeal
Ratio Decidendi: Police have discretion under CrPC to investigate multiple complaints arising from same criminal conspiracy under single FIR -- Each investor complaint in cheating case does not necessarily constitute separate transaction requiring individual FIR registration -- Section 219 CrPC restrictions on joinder of charges apply at trial stage, not investigation stage -- Practical considerations must govern investigation procedures in large-scale fraud cases with numerous victims
Judgment Excerpts: The Division Bench answered the questions as follows: 'Thus, our answer to Question (a) is that in a case of inducement, allurement and cheating of large number of investors/depositors in pursuance to a criminal conspiracy, each deposit by an investor constitutes a separate and individual transaction' -- 'The amalgamation, strictly in terms of Section 219 Cr.P.C., would be considered by the Court/Magistrate at the stage of framing of charge' -- 'During the investigation into this complaint, it was found that altogether 1,852 victims had been cheated of their monies'
Procedural History: FIR No. 89 of 2009 registered on 01.06.2009 under Sections 420 and 120B IPC -- 1,851 additional complaints clubbed with FIR No. 89 of 2009 -- Charge sheet filed on 09.02.2014 against 15 persons -- Six supplementary charge sheets filed between 2014 and 2025 -- Bail petition filed by respondent in 2014 -- Additional Sessions Judge framed three questions of law on 14.03.2014 -- Reference made to High Court under Section 395(2) CrPC -- High Court answered reference on 08.07.2019 -- State filed appeal to Supreme Court -- Supreme Court stayed High Court judgment on 25.11.2019 -- Supreme Court heard appeal with Amicus Curiae assistance
