The Bombay High Court has allowed a writ petition seeking clubbing of ten First Information Reports registered across multiple districts in Maharashtra against the director and promoter of three cooperative credit societies, directing their consolidation for a single trial before the court at Nashik. The decision applies the Supreme Court's settled principle that multiplicity of proceedings arising from the same scheme is contrary to public interest and judicial efficiency.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Vishnu Ramchandra Bhagwat, aged 43, a businessman residing at Govind Nagar, Nashik, is the Director and Promoter of three business entities: (i) Ujjwal Agro Multi State Co-operative Society Private Limited, (ii) Shri Mauli Multi State Credit Co-operative Society Private Limited, and (iii) M/s Sankalp Sidhi Product Private Limited. These entities are engaged in the business of cooperative credit societies and direct selling. Ten separate FIRs were registered against the petitioner across various police stations in Maharashtra between 2019 and 2022, all alleging acceptance of deposits on promise of high returns followed by default in repayment.
Key Facts
- The first FIR, C.R. No. 209 of 2019, was registered at Mumbai Naka Police Station, Nashik, and investigated by the Economic Offence Wing (EOW), Nashik
- Offences registered under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 201, 120B, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Sections 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 (MPID Act); and Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 (PCMC Act)
- The alleged crime amount in the first FIR was Rs. 5.87 crores
- The petitioner's bank accounts, properties, vehicles, and other assets valued at more than Rs. 40 crore have been attached by the investigating agency
- The petitioner has been granted either regular or anticipatory bail in each of the ten FIRs
- The petitioner has been in custody for more than four years since registration of the first FIR
- Prior to the first FIR, there was not a single complaint against any of the three entities by any customer
- Complaints originated at the instance of one Ganesh Kankal, a self-proclaimed RTI activist who was arrested in 2016 (C.R. No. 113 of 2016) for extortion and found in possession of two pistols and 30 live cartridges
- After his release, Kankal allegedly launched a campaign against the petitioner, spreading misinformation that created panic among customers, leading to the debit freeze on the entities' accounts by EOW, Nashik
Procedural History
- 2019: First FIR (C.R. No. 209/2019) registered at Mumbai Naka Police Station, Nashik
- 2019-2022: Nine additional FIRs registered across multiple districts:
- 59/2020 at EOW, Dhule
- 109/2020 at Ambad Police Station, Nashik
- 156/2019 at Jaikheda Police Station, Nashik
- 86/2019 at Pathardi Police Station, Ahilyanagar
- 273/2020 at Parali Police Station, Beed
- 251/2019 at Phaltan Police Station, Satara
- 51/2020 at Bhandup Police Station, Mumbai
- 201/2019 at EOW Pune (Aalephata P.S.)
- 16/2021 at Sonai Police Station, Ahilyanagar
- 262/2022 at Ulhasnagar Police Station, Thane
- 2023: Writ Petition No. 1585 of 2023 filed before the Bombay High Court seeking clubbing of all ten FIRs
- 3rd September 2026: Matter reserved for judgment
- 22nd October 2026: Judgment pronounced
The Parties' Positions
Petitioner: Contended that all ten FIRs rest on identical allegations concerning his role as Director and Promoter of the three entities. Prosecuting them before ten different courts would cause undue hardship, delay, and multiplicity of proceedings. Relied on T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala & Others and Radhey Shyam v. State of Haryana & Ors.
Respondent-State: Represented by Mr. Ajay S. Patil, APP. The State did not oppose the clubbing application.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought clubbing of all ten FIRs and their transfer to a single court for common trial, specifically the court trying the case arising out of C.R. No. 209 of 2019 at Nashik.
The Legal Issue
Whether multiple FIRs registered across different police stations in Maharashtra, alleging substantially identical offences under the MPID Act, IPC and PCMC Act against the same accused in his capacity as director and promoter of the same business entities, should be clubbed together and transferred to a single court for consolidated trial.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Mr. Vikram Parmar, instructed by Mr. Sudatta Patil, submitted that the petitioner has been subjected to multiple prosecutions solely in his capacity as Director and Promoter of the three entities. All ten FIRs contain substantially identical allegations: acceptance of deposits on promise of high returns, part payments made, subsequent default, and lodging of FIRs for non-repayment. The petitioner has been in custody for over four years, and fresh complaints continue to be filed. Defending ten separate trials would be oppressive and contrary to the interest of justice. The petitioner relied on T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala & Others (2001) 6 SCC 181 and Radhey Shyam v. State of Haryana & Ors. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1935, where the Supreme Court directed clubbing of multiple FIRs arising from the same scheme.
For the Respondent
Mr. Ajay S. Patil, APP for the State, did not oppose the clubbing application. The State's consent aligns with the Supreme Court's observation in Radhey Shyam that all concerned States voiced no objection to clubbing of FIRs across jurisdictions.
The Court's Analysis
The Division Bench, comprising Justices A.S. Gadkari and Kamal Khata (author), surveyed the Supreme Court's evolving jurisprudence on clubbing of FIRs. The Court noted that the law is now well settled: multiplicity of proceedings in offences registered under a similar scheme floated by a particular company or group of companies is not in the larger public interest.
The Court extensively quoted from State (NCT) of Delhi v. Khimji Bhai Jadeja (2026 SCC OnLine 19), where the Supreme Court traced its recent decisions:
"In Amanat Ali v. State of Karnataka, reported in 2023 14 SCC 801 following the ratio decidendi in Amish Devgan v Union of India reported in 2021 1 SCC 1, this Court exercised power under Article 142 of the Constitution and consolidated six FIRs registered in the State to be tried together, as multiplicity of proceedings would not be in the larger public interest or in the interest of the State. Again, in Ravinder Singh Sidhu v. State of Punjab, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1164 this Court observed that it is now fairly well settled that multiplicity of proceedings would not be in the larger public interest and the correct course of action would be to merge the later FIRs with the earliest FIR with the State's consent. On the same lines, in Alok Kumar v. State of Bihar, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1728 this Court noted that 81 FIRs were registered and directed the first FIR to be treated as the main FIR and all other FIRs to be treated as statements under Section 161 CrPC. Earlier, in Satinder Singh Bhasin v. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in 2023 14 SCC 805 a 3-Judge Bench of this Court followed the principle enunciated in Amish Devgan (supra) and clubbed, with consent, the 118 FIRs relating to the Bike Bot scheme registered across the State of Uttar Pradesh and one FIR registered by the Economic Offences Wing, New Delhi, by exercising power under Article 142 of the Constitution. Before that, in Radhey Shyam v. State of Haryana, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1935 the very same 3-Judge Bench took note of multiple FIRs in connection with a network marketing scheme in as many as 12 States and directed the clubbing of all the FIRs, which could thereafter proceed to one trial as far as possible, duly noting that all the States concerned voiced no objection to such course of action."
The Court found that in the present case, the allegations in all ten FIRs are substantially the same: each alleges that the petitioner accepted deposits from complainants on promise of high returns, made part payments, then stopped paying altogether, leading to FIRs for non-repayment. The Court held that clubbing would facilitate efficient administration of justice and expedite trial.
Following Alok Kumar, the Court directed that the first FIR (C.R. No. 209 of 2019, Mumbai Naka Police Station, Nashik) be treated as the main FIR, and all other FIRs be treated as statements under Section 161 CrPC. The Court also provided for witness convenience: evidence may be recorded via video conferencing; where physical presence is required, the petitioner shall bear travel expenses (First or Second Class AC train fare, whichever is cheaper), Rs. 2,000 per day for food and stay in at least 'A-Grade' hotels, and witnesses shall not be required to repeatedly attend court.
The Verdict
The petition was allowed. The Court made the Rule absolute and directed: (1) Clubbing of all ten FIRs with C.R. No. 209 of 2019 (Mumbai Naka Police Station, Nashik) as the main FIR; (2) Transfer of all cases to the court at Nashik trying the main FIR; (3) Registrar (Judicial-I) to forward the judgment to all courts where charge-sheets have been filed for transfer; (4) Witnesses may give evidence via video conferencing; (5) Petitioner to bear witness travel (First/Second Class AC train fare, cheaper option), Rs. 2,000 per day for food and stay in A-Grade hotels; (6) Transfer exercise to be completed within 30 days from uploading of the judgment on the Bombay High Court website; (7) Pending Interim Application No. 4330 of 2025 disposed of.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Multiplicity of Proceedings Is Not in Public Interest
The judgment reinforces the Supreme Court's consistent stance that when multiple FIRs arise from the same scheme or business model across jurisdictions, consolidation serves judicial efficiency and the accused's right to fair trial. Practitioners should proactively seek clubbing at the earliest stage rather than defending parallel proceedings.
First FIR Becomes Main FIR; Others Become Section 161 Statements
Following Alok Kumar v. State of Bihar, the earliest FIR assumes primacy as the main FIR, while subsequent FIRs are treated as statements under Section 161 CrPC. This has significant evidentiary implications: statements in later FIRs lose independent prosecutorial weight and become part of the investigation record in the main case.
Witness Protection and Cost Allocation Are Integral to Clubbing Orders
The Court's detailed directions on witness expenses (travel, food, stay) and video conferencing set a practical template for future clubbing orders. Practitioners should anticipate and address witness logistics in their prayers, as courts are increasingly factoring witness hardship into consolidation decisions.
- File clubbing applications early, citing Khimji Bhai Jadeja, Alok Kumar, Satinder Singh Bhasin, and Radhey Shyam
- Seek video conferencing for witnesses dispersed across jurisdictions
- Be prepared to undertake witness expense obligations as a condition for clubbing
- Ensure the earliest FIR is identified and its jurisdictional court is the preferred forum
- Obtain State's consent where possible, as it strengthens the application
