The Supreme Court on Thursday firmly rejected a plea to consolidate 53 First Information Reports (FIRs) spanning seven states against individuals accused of a Rs 49-crore investment scam. The ruling marks a decisive stance by the top court to prioritize a “victim-centric” judicial approach over the convenience of accused fraudsters.
A three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice Vipul M Pancholi refused to entertain the petition filed on behalf of the accused, Upendra Nath Mishra and Kali Prasad Mishra. Following the bench’s strong observations, senior advocate Aman Lekhi, representing the accused, withdrew the plea.
The criminal cases against the duo are currently pending across a wide geographic footprint, including Odisha, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Goa, and Andhra Pradesh.
A Shift Away from ‘Pro-Accused’ Precedents
In seeking to merge the 53 separate cases, the defense pointed to past Supreme Court judgments that permitted the consolidation of multiple FIRs in large-scale fraud cases to ensure a speedy trial.
However, the bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant strongly challenged this practice. The CJI observed that past consolidations often resulted in “pro-accused” outcomes at the direct expense of those who lost their savings.
“What will happen to the rights of the victims of such crimes?” Chief Justice Surya Kant asked during the hearing. “For investigation, I cannot club the FIRs. Such victims of fraud are also invisible victims of the judicial system which did not think about them.”
The CJI also highlighted recent amendments to criminal law, noting that the Indian legal system has evolved to formally acknowledge and protect the rights of victims.
‘Invisible Victims’ of the System
The apex court rejected the idea that multiple cases of financial fraud should be treated as a single transaction simply because they share the same accused. The bench emphasized that every instance of fraud involves distinct victims and varying amounts of defrauded money.
“Is it fair to ask the victims of your crime to come from different places to one place at the convenience of the accused?” the CJI questioned.
Echoing this sentiment, Justice Joymalya Bagchi emphasized the independent nature of each charge. He noted that every individual allegation of fraud, cheating, and conspiracy stands as a separate and distinct offense, asking, “Why should the victims of such offences suffer?”
With the withdrawal of the plea, the accused will continue to face independent investigations and trials across all seven states where the alleged defrauding took place.
