'Inconvenience To Victims In Different Parts Of Country' : Supreme Court Refuses Clubbing Of FIRs In Noida Ponzi Scam Case

The Supreme Court dismissed petitions seeking clubbing of all existing and future FIRs by Noida Ponzi Scam accused.

Such direction, if given, would override the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure on jurisdictional provisions without notifying the existing as also potential complainants in any manner whatsoever, the bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Vikram Nath said.

Anubhav Mittal and other accused were conducting a web based marketing scheme through a company, Ablaze Info Solutions Pvt.Ltd. Individuals, who participated in the scheme lodged complaint on not receiving the money as per promise held out. Several First Information Reports have been lodged against them in the States of Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, Uttarakhand, Rajasthan and Telangana.

In this petition, they sought consolidation of existing and future FIRs, charge sheets and also the trials commenced in different States to the Police Station Surajpur, District Gautam Buddh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh or the Court having jurisdiction over the said police station. 

The bench noted that the victims who allege to have suffered loss by participating in such scheme belong to different States as also different jurisdictions within a State.

"The alleged cheating and connected offences have occurred at different parts of the country and each victim under the existing provisions of law has a right to prosecute his complaints against the petitioners through the law enforcement agency under normal circumstances having power to conduct investigation in the particular territory where complaint is lodged. It is apparent that the petitioners had mobilised funds from different parts of the country and now, on alleged default, cannot plead their inconvenience of having to defend their cases in multiple jurisdictions. A person who has lost money in, for instance, the State of Telangana cannot be compelled to lodge an F.I.R. only in the Surajpur police station in Uttar Pradesh. We have to consider his inconvenience as well. It is not our opinion that consolidation of F.I.Rs. or cases cannot be directed at all, but such exercise can be undertaken in a given case depending upon the facts and circumstances of such case. Present case does not warrant invoking such powers", the court said while dismissing the petitions.

Case details

Anubhav Mittal vs State of Uttar Pradesh | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 980 | WP(C) 238/2022 | 7 Nov 2022 | Justices Aniruddha Bose and Vikram Nath

Headnotes

Constitution of India, 1950 ; Article 32 - Clubbing of FIRs -Plea of accused seeking consolidating of all existing and future cases or FIRs/chargesheets to a particular Court or police station - Such direction, if given, would override the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure on jurisdictional provisions without notifying the existing as also potential complainants in any manner whatsoever - The alleged cheating and connected offences have occurred at different parts of the country and each victim under the existing provisions of law has a right to prosecute his complaints against the accused through the law enforcement agency under normal circumstances having power to conduct investigation in the particular territory where complaint is lodged - A person who has lost money in, for instance, the State of Telangana cannot be compelled to lodge an F.I.R. only in the Surajpur police station in Uttar Pradesh. We have to consider his inconvenience as well. It is not our opinion that consolidation of F.I.Rs. or cases cannot be directed at all, but such exercise can be undertaken in a given case depending upon the facts and circumstances of such case. Present case does not warrant invoking such powers.

Click here to Read/Download Order