Case Name : State vs Khimji Bhai Jadeja Case Reference: Neutral Citation: 2019:DHC:3239-DB Case Number: Crl Ref 1/2014 Court: Delhi High Court Bench: 02 Coram: Vipin Sanghi (Author), I S Mehta Date: 08.07.2019
For a series of acts to be regarded as forming the same transaction, they must be connected in some way; there must be continuity of action. (Para 22)
Consequence test: If an offence which forms part of the second FIR arises as a consequence of the first FIR, then the offences covered by both the FIRs are same (Para 58)
Claims of cheating by successive complainants or victims under the same conspiracy need not be a consequence of the offence alleged in the first FIR since it was open to the accused not to proceed to commit the subsequent offence. (Para 58)
Practice of registering one FIR is untenable in law and deprives the victims and complainants of their rights (Para 60) The others would at best, only be witnesses to establish the conspiracy; It denies victims of the right to file protest petition, Seek cancellation of bail The accused may be inclined to to enter into a settlement / compromise only with the complainant and not the other victims
In a case of inducement, allurement and cheating of a large number of investors/ depositors in pursuance to a criminal conspiracy, each deposit by an investor constitute a separate and individual transaction. (Para 62) The State must register a separate FIR
In respect of each separate FIR, there must be a separate final report (Paras 76, 77, 80)
Section 31(2) has no application when there are multiple trials which result in multiple convictions (Para 82)
Refer also: Narinderjit Singh Sahni vs Union of India, (2002) 2 SCC 210 : AIR 2001 SC 3810
See also: CrPC, Section 31 CrPC, Section 220 CrPC, Section 218 IPC - Section 71