The Supreme Court of India, comprising a bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih, has held that a similar modus operandi across multiple cyber fraud complaints does not inherently mean the offences form part of the “same transaction.” Dismissing a writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, the apex court refused to quash or consolidate multiple First Information Reports (FIRs) registered against a petitioner across Maharashtra, Karnataka, and Odisha. The Court held that the petitioner failed to show a violation of fundamental rights or exceptional circumstances to bypass statutory remedies, adding that each FIR represented distinct occurrences involving different victims.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Rutvij Bhagat Singh Wakhare, approached the Supreme Court seeking the quashing or, alternatively, the clubbing and consolidation of four FIRs registered in Karnataka (Bengaluru), Maharashtra (Pune), and Odisha (Rourkela). The FIRs were lodged under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (including Sections 120B, 170, 384, 389, 417, 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, and 506) and the Information Technology Act, 2000 (Sections 43, 66C, and 66D).
The allegations in the FIRs pertained to cyber fraud schemes where complainants were contacted by unknown persons posing as police officers. The victims were falsely told that money laundering activities were conducted in their names and were coerced into transferring money into various bank accounts for verification. A portion of these funds was transferred into a bank account belonging to ‘M/s Al Zeba Marinen Overseas’, a proprietary concern owned by the petitioner.
The petitioner contended that he was serving abroad on a merchant ship and had no knowledge of the transactions. He stated that he had allowed a friend to use the bank account on a commission basis for an online gaming business, which was subsequently operated and misused by his friend and another individual. The petitioner noted that upon learning of the misuse, he filed a Cyber Crime Complaint on May 9, 2024, against those individuals.
Arguments of the Parties
The petitioner submitted that all the FIRs arose out of identical allegations and similar offences. Allowing separate investigations across multiple jurisdictions would lead to a multiplicity of proceedings, conflicting findings, and grave prejudice. The petitioner also cited medical grounds, stating that his severe cardiac ailment and diabetic condition made it difficult to face proceedings across different States.
Conversely, the respondent States opposed the prayer for clubbing. They submitted that each FIR was lodged by a distinct complainant regarding an independent transaction and separate acts constituting cognizable offences. The State agencies argued that investigating bodies in the respective jurisdictions were competent to investigate crimes committed within their territorial boundaries. They further submitted that cyber fraud investigations require complex forensic examination of digital evidence, tracing of money trails, and detailed analysis of bank accounts.
The Court’s Analysis
Addressing the primary prayer for quashing the FIRs under Article 32, the Court observed that while the power under Article 32 to quash criminal proceedings exists to prevent abuse of process, it is an extraordinary remedy to be exercised sparingly. Referring to precedents such as Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras, Union of India v. Paul Manickam, Jagisha Arora v. State of U.P., and Sunil Kumar Rai v. State of Bihar, the bench reiterated that an aggrieved party should ordinarily approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution or Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
Citing Arnab Ranjan Goswami v. Union of India, the Court highlighted the distinction between maintainability and entertaining a writ petition, noting:
“There is a clear distinction between the maintainability of a petition and whether it should be entertained.”
The Court also discussed Vinod Dua v. Union of India and Rajendra Bihari Lal v. State of U.P., emphasizing that extraordinary intervention is reserved for cases involving clear violations of fundamental rights. In Rajendra Bihari Lal, the Court had observed:
“Let justice be done, though the Heavens may fall”
In the present case, Justice Sanjay Karol noted that the petitioner failed to establish any infringement of fundamental rights or exigent circumstances justifying bypassing the remedy before the High Court.
On the alternative prayer for clubbing the FIRs, the Court examined the law governing multiple FIRs as laid down in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, Amit Katyal v. State of Haryana, Babubhai v. State of Gujarat, Anju Chaudhary v. State of U.P., and State of Rajasthan v. Surendra Singh Rathore. Referring to State (NCT of Delhi) v. Khimji Bhai Jadeja, which cited Banwarilal Jhunjhunwala v. Union of India, Cheemalapati Ganeswara Rao, and State of Jharkhand v. Lalu Prasad Yadav, the bench explained the triple test used to evaluate whether acts form part of the “same transaction”: unity of purpose and design, proximity of time and place, and continuity of action.
Applying these tests, the Court found that each FIR was filed by a different victim cheated on a different occasion with no inter-se link between the transactions. A shared modus operandi alone does not merge distinct crimes into a single transaction.
The Court further held that the petitioner’s medical condition could not be a legal ground to order clubbing where distinct offences are disclosed. It also noted that clubbing the cases would cause immense hardship to the victims, forcing them to pursue their remedies in distant jurisdictions.
Reflecting on the gravity of digital crimes, the bench observed:
“Several cyber frauds are now on the rise and the offence, considering its gravity and implications cannot be taken lightly. More so, when the victims of crime largely hailing from the rural areas, unaware and ignorant of the process and the mechanism adopted by the criminals are allured to overcome their poverty.”
Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition. The bench clarified that liberty is reserved for the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum to seek legal remedies, including under Article 226 or Section 482 of the CrPC, with all contentions left open for consideration by competent courts on their merits.
Case Details
Case Title: Rutvij Bhagat Singh Wakhare v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Case No.: Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 127 of 2026
Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih
Date: July 24, 2026
