The Supreme Court has ruled that multiple First Information Reports (FIRs) arising from separate cyber fraud complaints cannot be clubbed into a single investigation merely because the alleged modus operandi is similar or because the proceeds of the alleged fraud were traced to the same bank account.
The bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih has observed that where each complaint relates to a distinct victim, separate transactions, and independent offences, individual investigations must continue in accordance with law.
The case arose from four cyber fraud FIRs registered in different States. According to the prosecution, victims were contacted by persons impersonating police officers and falsely informed that their identities had been linked to money laundering activities. Under the guise of “verification” and “investigation,” the victims were allegedly persuaded to transfer substantial amounts of money into various bank accounts.
Buy Now: GST Judgements E-Compilation – June 2026
Investigating agencies alleged that a portion of the defrauded funds was credited into a bank account belonging to the petitioner’s proprietary concern, although the petitioner himself was not named as an accused in the FIRs.
The petitioner denied any involvement in the alleged offences and claimed that he had permitted acquaintances to use the bank account for an online gaming business. He contended that the account had subsequently been misused without his knowledge and pointed out that he had independently lodged a cyber crime complaint against those individuals before the FIRs were registered.
The Court first examined whether it should exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 32 to quash the criminal proceedings.
While reaffirming that the Supreme Court possesses the constitutional power to quash FIRs in exceptional cases involving violation of fundamental rights, the Bench emphasized that such jurisdiction is exercised sparingly. Ordinarily, an aggrieved person should first approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution or invoke the High Court’s inherent powers to quash proceedings.
The Bench found that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate any infringement of fundamental rights or any exceptional circumstances warranting direct intervention by the Supreme Court.
Accordingly, the Court declined to entertain the prayer seeking quashing of the FIRs and granted liberty to pursue appropriate remedies before the competent forum.
Addressing the alternative plea for clubbing all FIRs into a single investigation, the Supreme Court undertook an extensive review of earlier precedents governing multiple FIRs.
The Court reiterated the settled principle that a second FIR is impermissible only when it relates to the very same incident or forms part of the same transaction. However, separate FIRs are legally maintainable where they concern different victims, distinct occurrences, or independent criminal acts, even if the modus operandi appears similar.
Applying the “test of sameness” evolved in earlier judgments, the Bench observed that each complaint before it had been lodged by a different victim who had allegedly suffered independent financial loss on different occasions.
The Court noted that although part of the allegedly defrauded money may have ultimately reached the petitioner’s bank account, that circumstance alone did not establish that all incidents formed one continuous transaction.
Since the victims, amounts involved, dates of occurrence, and resulting injuries were all different, the Court held that the FIRs disclosed separate offences requiring independent investigations.
The Bench observed that similarity in the method adopted by fraudsters cannot automatically convert multiple independent offences into a single transaction.
Referring to earlier Supreme Court decisions, the Court reiterated that while common design or similarity of execution may exist, separate criminal acts affecting different victims ordinarily constitute distinct offences requiring separate trials and investigations.
The Court emphasized that the legal inquiry depends upon whether the incidents exhibit unity of purpose, proximity of time and place, and continuity of action. Merely sharing a similar pattern of commission is insufficient.
The petitioner also argued that his serious cardiac ailments and diabetic condition would make it difficult to participate in proceedings before authorities in multiple States.
While expressing sympathy for the medical difficulties, the Supreme Court held that personal inconvenience cannot become a legal basis for consolidating FIRs that otherwise disclose distinct criminal offences.
The Bench further observed that directing consolidation could instead prejudice the complainants, who would then be compelled to pursue their grievances in a distant jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court also underlined the growing sophistication of cyber-enabled financial crimes.
It observed that such offences frequently involve multiple bank accounts, digital identities, technological networks, and cross-jurisdictional transactions. Investigating agencies therefore require sufficient freedom to conduct forensic examination of electronic evidence, trace money trails, and identify all participants in the alleged conspiracy.
The Court cautioned that ordering a composite investigation at the preliminary stage could hamper effective investigation, particularly when agencies are still attempting to unravel the complete chain of transactions.
Recognizing the increasing prevalence of cyber frauds, especially targeting vulnerable individuals unfamiliar with digital financial systems, the Bench stressed that such offences cannot be treated lightly.
Dismissing the writ petition, the Supreme Court refused both the prayer to quash the FIRs and the request to consolidate them into a single investigation. However, it reserved liberty to the petitioner to pursue appropriate legal remedies before the competent courts, while leaving all questions of fact and law open for determination in accordance with law.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
