In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court of India has made a significant decision regarding the consolidation of multiple First Information Reports (FIRs) filed in different states. The petitioner, Amanat Ali, sought the consolidation of various FIRs registered against him in Madhya Pradesh, Karnataka, and Jharkhand. These FIRs, involving charges of fraud and deception, were spread across several police stations in the respective states.
The counsel for the 60-year-old petitioner argued that Ali, who was not appointed as the Director of G. Life India Developers and Colonizers Limited, was wrongfully implicated in several cases related to the company’s fraud and scam activities. They contended that consolidating these cases into one jurisdiction, specifically in Guna, Madhya Pradesh, would ensure a speedy and fair trial while avoiding the duplication of legal proceedings.
However, the respondents, represented by counsels from states of Karnataka and Jharkhand, opposed this motion. They argued that each case involved different complainants and witnesses, and transferring all cases to a single court in Madhya Pradesh would be unjust for them. They stated that it would be inappropriate and burdensome for the complainants and witnesses to travel from Karnataka or Jharkhand to Madhya Pradesh.
After considering the arguments, the Supreme Court, applying the principles from previous relevant cases and Article 142 of the Constitution of India, decided to partially accede to the petitioner’s request. The Court ordered the consolidation of FIRs filed in Madhya Pradesh but rejected the transfer of cases from Karnataka and Jharkhand. The FIRs in Madhya Pradesh, which were registered in various districts including Dewas, Indore, and Khargone, will be consolidated and tried together in the District of Devas, where the first FIR against Ali was filed.
This decision by the Supreme Court underscores the balancing act between ensuring judicial efficiency and respecting the rights and conveniences of all parties involved. While it consolidates proceedings in Madhya Pradesh, it also respects the logistical and practical concerns raised by respondents from other states. The ruling sets a precedent for similar cases involving multi-jurisdictional issues and reflects the court’s approach in dealing with complex legal scenarios spread across different regions.
