MPID Act | Victim Convenience Outweighs Accused's Request for Clubbing Cases : Bombay HC

The Bombay High Court has delivered a nuanced judgment on the clubbing of criminal cases under the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 (MPID Act), balancing the convenience of senior citizen victims against the accused's request for a joint trial in Mumbai. While partly allowing the petition, the Court directed two Pune cases to be clubbed, but declined to transfer the Mumbai case, citing the hardship of 275 elderly victims required to travel for trial.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The petitioners, Markas Yohan Thorat and Keshav Narayan Iddya, sought the clubbing of three criminal cases registered under the MPID Act across Mumbai and Pune. These cases arose from similar allegations: collection of deposits from investors with promises of high returns, followed by alleged fraud. The petitioners contended that the cases involved identical transactions and should be tried jointly by the Special MPID Court at Mumbai, where MPID Special Case No. 12 of 2018 (arising from CR No. 11 of 2017) was pending.

Key Facts

• CR No. 11 of 2017 (MPID Case No. 12 of 2018): Registered at Bhoiwada Police Station, EOW Mumbai, involving 567 investors, of whom 275 were senior citizens (above 60 years).
• CR No. 275 of 2017 (MPID Case No. 14 of 2017): Registered at Chaturshrungi Police Station, Pune, involving 1,231 investors, of whom 221 were senior citizens.
• CR No. 60 of 2017 (MPID Case No. 3 of 2018): Registered at Lashkar Police Station, Pune, involving 48 investors, of whom 6 were senior citizens.
• The petitioners filed an Affidavit dated 23.09.2025, undertaking to bear the travel and meal expenses of witnesses from Pune to Mumbai if the cases were clubbed.

Procedural History

• 2017-2018: Three FIRs registered across Mumbai and Pune under the MPID Act.
• 2021: Writ Petition (WP No. 5811 of 2021) filed before the Bombay High Court seeking clubbing of cases.
• 30.03.2026: Affidavit filed by the Special Inspector General of Police (Law and Order) opposing the transfer of the Mumbai case.
• 15.04.2026: Affidavit filed by the Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department, Government of Maharashtra, stating that the State had no objection to clubbing the two Pune cases but opposed transferring the Mumbai case.
• 23.04.2026: Judgment reserved.
• 24.06.2026: Judgment pronounced.

Relief Sought

The petitioners sought:

1. Clubbing of all three cases and their joint trial before the Special MPID Court at Mumbai.
2. Directions to transfer CR No. 60 of 2017 and CR No. 275 of 2017 from Pune to Mumbai.

The Legal Issue

The central question was whether Sections 219, 220, 221, and 223 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) permit the clubbing of criminal cases registered in different jurisdictions under the MPID Act, particularly when such clubbing would impose hardship on a large number of senior citizen victims required to travel for trial.

Arguments Presented

For the Petitioners

1. Clubbing of Cases: Relied on the Bombay High Court's decision in Pramod Bhaichand Raisoni & Ors. vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. (2019:BHC-AS:14604-DB), where 77 MPID cases involving 42,470 witnesses were clubbed and transferred to a single court. The petitioners argued that the transactions in all three cases were identical, warranting similar treatment.
2. Supreme Court Precedents: Cited:
   • Radhey Shyam vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (2022 DGLS (SC) 909), where the Supreme Court, under Article 142 of the Constitution, directed clubbing of FIRs to serve larger public interest.
   • Abhishek Singh Chauhan vs. Union of India & Ors. (2022 DGLS (SC) 906), where subsequently registered FIRs were treated as statements under Section 161 CrPC and transferred to the court of first registration.
   • Odela Satyam & Anr. vs. The State of Telangana & Ors. (2025 INSC 1174), where the Supreme Court directed clubbing of cases despite the State's lack of consent, with the accused bearing witness expenses.
3. Undertaking: The petitioners undertook to bear the travel and meal expenses of witnesses from Pune to Mumbai, as detailed in their Affidavit dated 23.09.2025.

For the Respondent-State

1. Partial Opposition: The State had no objection to clubbing CR No. 60 of 2017 and CR No. 275 of 2017 (both Pune cases) but opposed transferring the Mumbai case (CR No. 11 of 2017).
2. Hardship to Victims: Emphasized that CR No. 11 of 2017 involved 567 investors, of whom 275 were senior citizens. Transferring this case to Mumbai would impose physical hardship and inconvenience on elderly victims, outweighing the petitioners' request.
3. Affidavits: Relied on:
   • Affidavit dated 30.03.2026 by the Special Inspector General of Police.
   • Affidavit dated 15.04.2026 by the Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department, detailing the number of victims and their ages.

The Court's Analysis

The Court undertook a balancing exercise between the convenience of the accused and the hardship to victims, particularly senior citizens. Key observations included:

1. Precedents Distinguished: While the petitioners relied on Pramod Raisoni and Odela Satyam, the Court noted that these cases involved clubbing of cases within the same jurisdiction or where the State had no objection. Here, the State opposed transferring the Mumbai case due to the large number of elderly victims.
2. Financial vs. Physical Hardship: The petitioners' undertaking to bear witness expenses was insufficient to address the physical hardship of senior citizens traveling from Pune to Mumbai. The Court held:

   "Financial assistance by itself, cannot alleviate the physical hardship and inconvenience that senior citizens may be required to undergo while travelling from Pune to Mumbai for attending the trial."

3. Victim-Centric Approach: The Court prioritized the convenience of victims, particularly senior citizens, over the accused's request for a joint trial. It noted that 502 of the 1,846 victims across the three cases were senior citizens.
4. Jurisdictional Practicality: The Court observed that clubbing the two Pune cases (CR No. 60 of 2017 and CR No. 275 of 2017) would be practical, as the larger case (MPID No. 14 of 2017) was already pending in Pune. However, transferring the Mumbai case would impose undue hardship on its 275 senior citizen victims.

The Verdict

The Court partly allowed the writ petition with the following directions:

1. CR No. 60 of 2017 (MPID Case No. 3 of 2018) and CR No. 275 of 2017 (MPID Case No. 14 of 2017), both registered in Pune, were directed to be clubbed and tried jointly by the Special MPID Court at Pune before which MPID Case No. 14 of 2017 was pending.
2. The transfer of CR No. 60 of 2017 to the Pune Court was to be effected within two weeks from the date of the judgment.
3. CR No. 11 of 2017 (MPID Case No. 12 of 2018), registered in Mumbai, was directed to continue being tried by the Special MPID Court at Mumbai.
4. Rule made absolute in the aforesaid terms.

What This Means For Similar Cases

Victim Convenience Trumps Accused's Request for Clubbing

• Courts may prioritize the convenience of victims, particularly vulnerable groups like senior citizens, over the accused's request for clubbing cases across jurisdictions.
• Financial undertakings (e.g., bearing witness expenses) may not suffice to override physical hardship arguments, especially when a large number of victims are involved.

Jurisdictional Practicality in Clubbing Cases

• Clubbing of cases is more likely to be allowed within the same jurisdiction or where the larger case is already pending.
• Courts may decline to transfer cases involving a significant number of victims, particularly if such transfer imposes logistical challenges (e.g., travel for elderly victims).

Balancing Act Under CrPC Provisions

• Sections 219, 220, 221, and 223 CrPC permit clubbing of cases, but courts retain discretion to balance the convenience of the accused against the hardship to victims.
• Practitioners must highlight the number and demographics of victims (e.g., age, location) to strengthen arguments against clubbing across jurisdictions.