Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, an accused in multiple FIRs alleging medical admission fraud, filed a criminal writ petition seeking clubbing, consolidation, and transfer of four FIRs registered against him in Maharashtra. The FIRs were lodged by students or parents who paid money under the pretext of counselling fee, processing fee, and college fee for admission to medical colleges through an entity named Eduvio Learning Solutions Private Limited. The four FIRs, registered between 18 March 2026 and 28 April 2026 at Powai, Andheri, D.B. Marg (all in Mumbai), and Yerwada (Pune), were claimed by the petitioner to arise from a single business model and continuing course of conduct. He argued that separate investigations would lead to conflicting findings and overlapping of evidence, and that common documents such as bank records, electronic devices, and digital communications would be relevant across all FIRs. The petitioner also sought a direction that no fresh FIRs be registered on subsequent complaints concerning the same transaction and that such complaints be treated as statements under Section 181 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The State opposed the blanket injunction, asserting that future complaints should be dealt with as and when filed, and submitted that the Pune FIR should not be clubbed with the Mumbai FIRs due to potential prejudice and inconvenience to Pune-based witnesses. The State further informed that charge-sheets had already been filed in two Mumbai FIRs before the 37th Esplanade Court. The High Court partly allowed the petition. It directed clubbing and consolidation of the three Mumbai FIRs in the interest of justice, to avoid duplication of evidence and multiple trials. The Pune FIR was not clubbed, as the court accepted that witnesses from Pune would suffer unnecessary prejudice if forced to travel to Mumbai. The prayer for a blanket injunction against registration of future FIRs was refused, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Odela Satyam v. State of Telangana, which held that no court can grant such a restraining order. The court clarified that it had not heard the matter on merits and left the petitioner at liberty to challenge any future FIR in accordance with law. The writ petition was disposed of with rule made partly absolute.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Investigation and Trial - Clubbing of FIRs - Constitution of India, Article 226 - The petitioner sought clubbing of four FIRs registered in Mumbai and Pune for medical admission fraud based on a common business model. The Court directed clubbing of three Mumbai FIRs, as charge-sheets were filed in the same court, to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, but refused to club the Pune FIR due to inconvenience to witnesses. Held: Under Article 226, the High Court can order clubbing of FIRs in the interest of justice, balancing the rights of accused and witnesses. (Paras 6-7) B) Criminal Procedure - Registration of FIRs - Blanket injunction against future FIRs - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Section 181 - Petitioner sought direction that future complaints be not registered as FIRs and be treated as statements under Section 181 BNSS. Relying on Odela Satyam, the Court held that no court can grant a blanket order restraining registration of future FIRs, as it cannot prejudge whether they pertain to independent transactions. The petitioner was given liberty to challenge any future FIR as per law. Held: Blanket injunction impermissible. (Paras 4,7,8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether multiple FIRs arising from the same business model and continuing course of conduct should be clubbed and consolidated; whether a blanket order restraining registration of fresh FIRs against the petitioner on subsequent complaints can be granted
Final Decision
The writ petition is partly allowed. The three Mumbai FIRs (Powai, Andheri, D.B. Marg) are clubbed and consolidated for investigation and trial in the interest of justice. The Pune FIR (Yerwada) is not clubbed due to potential prejudice to witnesses. The prayer for blanket injunction against registration of future FIRs is refused. The petitioner is at liberty to challenge any future FIR as per law. Rule is made partly absolute.
Law Points
- Multiple FIRs arising from the same transaction can be clubbed to avoid conflicting investigations and multiple trials
- blanket order restraining registration of future FIRs cannot be granted
- clubbing of FIRs is based on interest of justice and avoidance of duplication of evidence
- investigation and trial in economic offences can be consolidated in one court
- no court can prejudge future complaints
