LexTHE STATE (NCT) OF DELHI versus KHIMJI BHAI JADEJA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2026] 1 S.C.R. 167 : 2026 INSC 25 The State (NCT) of Delhi v. Khimji Bhai Jadeja (Criminal Appeal No. 74 of 2026) 06 January 2026 [Sanjay Kumar* and Alok Aradhe, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the consolidation of FIRs; and whether or not the offences allegedly committed against the 1,852 complainants were part of the ‘same transaction’. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss. 218-223 – Consolidation/ clubbing of FIRs – FIR registered u/ss. 420 and 120B IPC that accused and his accomplices, including the respondent induced large number of people to invest their monies and duped them by falsely claiming to triple money in a few days – Investigation revealed that altogether 1,852 victims cheated to the tune of ₹46.40 crores – Other 1851 complaints clubbed with the aforesaid FIR and those complainants made witnesses by treating their complaints as statements – Bail applications by the respondent – Additional Sessions Judge framed three questions of law and referred them to the High Court for appropriate decision – Division Bench answered the reference holding that (a) such complaints could not be amalgamated into one FIR by treating all such complainants as witnesses therein; (b) that the police could not club separate offences investigated under separate FIRs into one final report and that a separate final report had to be filed in relation to each FIR; and (c) that it would be for the trial court to consider the sentence that could be imposed on a convicted accused – Challenge to: Held: Reference by the Additional Sessions Judge was premature, as the stage had not arisen for her to have entertained any doubt so as to raise the questions of law for the decision of the High Court – Investigation was still ongoing and it could not * Author 168 [2026] 1 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports have been ascertained at that stage as to whether the alleged offences formed part and parcel of the same transaction – Even otherwise, consolidation of FIRs is permissible in law but that would have also depended upon the conclusions to be arrived at after the investigation – However, as on date, as many as six supplementary chargesheets have been filed during the pendency of this case, in addition to the main chargesheet that was filed in 2014 – End result of the investigation undertaken is that an offence u/s.120B IPC has been alleged – Thus, as a conspiracy is alleged, leading to multiple acts of cheating against different individuals, the course adopted by the Police in registering one FIR and treating the complaints received from 1851 other complainants as statements u/s.161 CrPC, was the correct course of action to have been adopted at that stage – Inference to be drawn from the chargesheets, left to the Magistrate concerned to consider, so as to ascertain whether the various acts of cheating attributed to the accused persons constitute part of the ‘same transaction’, thereby bringing them within the ambit of s.220(1) and s.223 (a) & (d) – If the offences formed part of the same transaction, the Magistrate would be entitled to charge and try them together, as enabled by the provisions, as it would be in the larger public interest to do so – Further, in such an event, the complainants, who would then be treated as witnesses in relation to the FIR which was first registered – For sentencing, the provisions of s.71 IPC along with ss.31 and 325 CrPC to be adhered to, depending upon the established facts and findings in the case – If, however, it is concluded that there are several transactions and distinct offences in relation to different victims, there have to be separate trials for each offence, subject to s.219 CrPC/ s.242 BNSS, which allows the trial court to try three/five offences of the same kind committed within a year – Thus, the judgment passed by the High Court set aside to that extent. [Paras 19-23] Case Law Cited Amish Devgan v. Union of India and Others (2021) 1 SCC 1 - relied on. State of Andhra Pradesh v. Cheemalapati Ganeswara Rao and Another [1964] 3 SCR 297 : AIR 1963 SC 1850; S. Swamirathnam v. State of Madras, AIR 1957 SC 340 : (1956) 2 SCC 144; Banwarilal Jhunjhunwala and Others v. Union of India and Another [1963] Supp. 2 SCR 338 : AIR 1963 SC 1620 ; State [2026] 1 S.C.R. 169 The State (NCT) of Delhi v. Khimji Bhai Jadeja of Jharkhand through SP, Central Bureau of Investigation v. Lalu Prasad Yadav alias Lalu Prasad [
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.