The Supreme Court has dismissed a writ petition under Article 32 seeking quashing of multiple First Information Reports registered across Maharashtra, Karnataka, and Odisha for alleged cyber fraud. The Court reiterated that while jurisdiction under Article 32 is wide, it is an extraordinary remedy to be exercised sparingly and only where fundamental rights are shown to be violated or exceptional circumstances exist. The petitioner failed to establish any infringement of fundamental rights or exceptional circumstances warranting direct intervention under Article 32.
Background & Facts
The Genesis of the Case
The petitioner, a businessman based in Maharashtra, is the proprietor of a firm named M/s Al Zeba Marinen Overseas. His bank account (Account No. 50200085120507) was allegedly used in a series of cyber frauds where complainants were induced to transfer money after being falsely informed that money laundering activities had been carried out in their names. The complainants were contacted by unknown persons posing as police officials and were asked to transfer money to various bank accounts for verification and investigation. A part of the defrauded amounts was allegedly credited to the petitioner’s bank account.
Key Facts
FIRs Registered: Four FIRs were registered in different states:
Karnataka: FIR No. 0275 of 2024 (10.05.2024) and FIR No. 0412 of 2024 (13.05.2024) under Sections 419, 420, 384, 506 IPC and Sections 43, 66(C), 66(D) IT Act.
Maharashtra: FIR No. 0499 of 2024 (04.06.2024) under Sections 419, 420, 34 IPC and Section 66(D) IT Act.
Odisha: FIR No. 0032 of 2024 (06.12.2024) under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 120-B IPC and Sections 66(C), 66(D) IT Act.
Alleged Modus Operandi: Complainants were induced to transfer money ranging from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 2,00,000 per transaction, with a part of the money credited to the petitioner’s bank account.
Petitioner’s Defence: The petitioner claimed he was serving abroad on a merchant ship during the relevant period and had no knowledge of the transactions. He stated that his bank account was operated by Mr. Ganesh Khaire and Mr. Krishnakant Sharma on a commission basis for an online gaming business. Upon becoming aware of the misuse, he lodged a cyber crime complaint on 09.05.2024 against these individuals.
Reliefs Sought: The petitioner sought quashing of all FIRs or, in the alternative, their clubbing and consolidation into a single investigation by a single agency to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and conflicting findings.
Procedural History
Filing of Writ Petition: The petitioner filed the present writ petition (Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 127 of 2026) under Article 32 of the Constitution on 15.01.2026.
Hearings: The matter was heard by a Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih.
Judgment Date: The judgment was delivered on 24.07.2026.
The Parties’ Positions
Petitioner’s Contention:
The petitioner argued that the FIRs were registered without any credible evidence against him and that he was not involved in the alleged offences.
He contended that the multiplicity of FIRs and investigations across different states would cause serious prejudice to him, especially given his health conditions.
He sought quashing of the FIRs or, in the alternative, their clubbing and consolidation into a single investigation.
Respondent States’ Contention:
The respondent states argued that each FIR was registered based on distinct complaints by different complainants involving separate transactions and offences.
They contended that the investigation was still in its nascent stage and required detailed forensic examination of electronic evidence and tracing of money trails across jurisdictions.
They opposed the clubbing of FIRs, stating that it would impede a fair and effective investigation and cause hardship to the complainants.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the Supreme Court could exercise its jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution to quash multiple FIRs registered in different states for alleged cyber fraud, or direct their clubbing and consolidation into a single investigation.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner relied on the broad jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 to seek quashing of the FIRs. He argued that the multiplicity of proceedings across different states would cause serious prejudice to him and that the investigation agencies were not competent to handle the matter effectively. He also contended that his fundamental rights under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution were being violated due to the harassment caused by multiple FIRs.
For the Respondent/State
The respondent states argued that the petitioner had failed to establish any violation of fundamental rights or exceptional circumstances warranting direct intervention under Article 32. They contended that each FIR was registered based on distinct complaints and involved separate transactions, making clubbing impermissible. They also highlighted the complexity of cyber fraud investigations, which required detailed forensic analysis and tracing of money trails across jurisdictions, and stated that clubbing would impede a fair investigation.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the scope of its jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution to quash FIRs. It reiterated that while the jurisdiction is wide, it is an extraordinary remedy to be exercised sparingly and only where fundamental rights are shown to be violated or exceptional circumstances exist. The Court referred to several precedents to elucidate the principles governing the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 32:
"Article 32 of the Constitution is the constitutional conduit through which this Court may issue ‘appropriate’ writs for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Part III. The right to approach this Court under Article 32 is itself a fundamental right and has been aptly described by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar as the ‘heart and soul’ of the Constitution. The jurisdiction conferred under Article 32 is undoubtedly wide. At the same time, it is an extraordinary remedy which must be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances, particularly when it is necessary to secure the ends of justice or to prevent the infringement of fundamental rights."
The Court also referred to Arnab Ranjan Goswami v. Union of India (2020) 14 SCC 12, where it was held that while a petition under Article 32 to quash an FIR is maintainable, the petitioner should ordinarily be relegated to the High Court under Section 482 CrPC unless exceptional circumstances exist. The Court observed:
"Whether the allegations contained in the FIR do or do not make out any offence as alleged will not be decided in pursuance of the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32, to quash the FIR. The petitioner must be relegated to the pursuit of the remedies available under the CrPC, which we hereby do."
The Court further referred to Rajendra Bihari Lal v. State of U.P. (2025 SCC OnLine SC 2265), where it was held that the existence of an alternative remedy does not dilute the constitutional mandate under Article 32, but the petitioner must show why the High Court could not be approached or why it would be futile to do so.
On the issue of clubbing FIRs, the Court examined the principles laid down in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala (2001) 6 SCC 181, Babubhai v. State of Gujarat (2010) 12 SCC 254, and Anju Chaudhary v. State of U.P. (2013) 6 SCC 384. The Court held that registration of multiple FIRs is impermissible if they relate to the same incident or form part of the same transaction. However, where the subsequent FIR relates to a distinct offence or incident, its registration cannot be faulted. The Court applied the triple test laid down in State of Jharkhand v. Lalu Prasad Yadav (2025 SCC OnLine SC 358) to determine whether separate actions form part of the same transaction:
Unity of purpose and design.
Proximity of time and place.
Continuity of action.
The Court held that in the present case, each FIR was lodged by a different complainant based on distinct transactions and offences. The mere fact that a part of the defrauded amounts was credited to the petitioner’s bank account did not establish that all incidents formed part of the same transaction. The Court observed:
"The petitioner has also urged that, owing to his serious cardiac ailments and diabetic condition, it would be difficult for him to face proceedings in different States. While we are not oblivious to this fact, however, such difficulty cannot be a ground to direct clubbing of FIRs which otherwise disclose commission of distinct offences."
The Court also noted that the investigation was still in its nascent stage and required detailed forensic examination of electronic evidence and tracing of money trails across jurisdictions. Clubbing the FIRs at this stage would impede a fair and effective investigation.
The Verdict
The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition. The Court held that the petitioner had failed to establish any infringement of fundamental rights or exceptional circumstances warranting direct intervention under Article 32. It also held that the subject FIRs related to separate transactions disclosing distinct offences and could not be clubbed. The Court clarified that the petitioner was at liberty to approach the appropriate forum to seek reliefs as he may be entitled to in law.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Article 32 Jurisdiction Is Extraordinary and Must Show Fundamental Rights Violation
The Supreme Court reiterated that jurisdiction under Article 32 is an extraordinary remedy to be exercised sparingly and only where fundamental rights are shown to be violated or exceptional circumstances exist.
Practitioners must demonstrate a clear violation of fundamental rights or exceptional circumstances to justify bypassing the High Court under Article 226 or Section 482 CrPC.
Clubbing of FIRs Is Permissible Only in Exceptional Cases
Clubbing of FIRs is permissible only where the FIRs relate to the same incident or form part of the same transaction.
Where the FIRs relate to distinct offences or incidents, clubbing is impermissible and may impede a fair investigation.
The triple test of unity of purpose and design, proximity of time and place, and continuity of action must be applied to determine whether FIRs form part of the same transaction.
Cyber Fraud Investigations Require Detailed Forensic Analysis
Cyber fraud investigations often involve complex technological means, multiple bank accounts, fictitious identities, and digital networks operating across jurisdictions.
Investigating agencies must conduct detailed forensic examination of electronic evidence and trace money trails to identify the people involved.
Clubbing of FIRs at the nascent stage of investigation may impede a fair and effective investigation.
