THE CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS OF CLUBBING MULTIPLE FIRs

INTRODUCTION

In Rutvij Bhagat Singh Wakhare v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. (decided on 24 July 2026), the Supreme Court of India, speaking through Justices Sanjay Karol and Augustine George Masih, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that although Article 32 (Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part) of Constitution remains an important constitutional remedy, it cannot ordinarily be invoked to bypass the statutory remedies available before the High Courts. At the same time, the Judgment revisits the settled principles governing multiple FIRs and clarifies when separate investigations are legally permissible.

BRIEF FACTS
The Petitioner approached the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking the Quashing of four FIRs registered in the States of Maharashtra, Karnataka and Odisha. In the alternative, the Petitioner requested that all FIRs be clubbed together and investigated by a single investigating agency to avoid conflicting investigations and multiplicity of proceedings.
The FIRs alleged that several victims were deceived through a cyber fraud scheme. The Complainants received calls from persons impersonating police officials and were falsely informed that they were involved in money laundering. Acting under fear, the Complainants transferred substantial amounts of money into various bank accounts.
Part of the defrauded money was allegedly credited to a bank account belonging to the Petitioner’s Proprietary concern. Although the Petitioner was not specifically named as an Accused in the FIRs, his account appeared in the investigation. The Petitioner claimed that he had merely allowed two Friends to operate the account for an online gaming business and that they had misused it without his knowledge. He further asserted that he had himself lodged a Cyber Crime Complaint after discovering the alleged misuse.
ISSUES OF LAW
1)Whether a Writ Petition under Article 32 seeking Quashing of multiple FIRs was maintainable in the facts of the case.
2)Whether the Petitioner had established exceptional circumstances warranting direct interference by the Supreme Court instead of approaching the High Court.
3)Whether the FIRs registered in different States formed part of the same transaction, thereby requiring clubbing and a composite investigation.
4)Whether similar modus operandi alone is sufficient to justify consolidation of multiple criminal proceedings.

ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGMENT
The Supreme Court held that although a petition under Article 32 for quashing a FIR is maintainable, it should be invoked only in exceptional cases involving violation of Fundamental Rights. Since the Petitioner failed to establish such circumstances, the Court directed him to seek relief before the appropriate High Court. Reaffirming earlier decisions such as T.T. Antony, Babubhai and Anju Chaudhary, the Apex Court observed that multiple FIRs are impermissible only when they relate to the same incident or transaction. Separate FIRs are valid if they concern different victims, independent transactions or distinct offences.
The Supreme Court explained that the “test of sameness” depends on factors such as unity of purpose, proximity of time and place and continuity of action. A common modus operandi alone does not make separate offences part of the same transaction. The Court found that each FIR involved a different Complainant, separate financial transactions and distinct losses. Although the alleged fraud followed a similar pattern, these incidents did not constitute one transaction. The request for clubbing the FIRs was therefore rejected.
The Petitioner’s health issues and the inconvenience of facing proceedings in different States were acknowledged but held insufficient to justify consolidation. As the FIRs disclosed distinct offences, separate investigations were allowed to continue.
CONCLUSION
The Judgment in Rutvij Bhagat Singh Wakhare v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. is a timely and well-reasoned contribution to Indian criminal jurisprudence. Rather than expanding the scope of Article 32, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the constitutional discipline that ordinarily requires litigants to first approach the High Courts for quashing criminal proceedings. Equally important, the Court clarified that the legality of multiple FIRs depends upon the existence of the same transaction, not merely upon the similarity of allegations or the modus operandi adopted by the offenders.
As cyber enabled financial crimes continue to become increasingly sophisticated and geographically dispersed, this ruling provides valuable guidance for investigating agencies, litigants and constitutional courts alike. It preserves the integrity of criminal investigations while ensuring that constitutional remedies remain available in genuinely exceptional cases.

TRISHMA KASHYAP
Legal Associate
The Indian Lawyer & Allied Service

watch our latest video on  NEET Protest