"NOTE ON CLUBBING OF FIR’s (FIRST INFORMATION REPORTS) WITH LANDMARK JUDGMENTS"

By: -        Natasha Rocha is a 4th year BBA LLB Law student, studying at  ISBR Law College affiliated to Karnataka State Law University.

Introduction

Clubbing of FIR’s, it refers to the legal process of consolidating multiple FIRs that relate to the same or connected cause of action, offences, or parties, into a single investigation or trial. This is generally done to prevent multiplicity of proceedings, avoid conflicting judgments, and ensure efficient administration of justice.

Legal Basis and Purpose

The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), does not expressly provide for "Clubbing of FIRs." However, courts have evolved this principle through judicial interpretations under their inherent powers, especially under Section 482 CrPC, which deals with the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of the court and to secure the ends of justice.

Landmark Judgments on Clubbing of FIRs

1. T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala (2001) 6 SCC 181

This case laid down that multiple FIRs for the same cause of action are not maintainable and that they can be clubbed into a single investigation.

-        Facts: Multiple FIRs were filed for the same incident.

-        Held: The Supreme Court held that once an FIR is registered and investigation has started, a second FIR for the same offence or incident is not permissible. Any further information should be treated as statements under Section 162 CrPC, and not as a fresh FIR.

2. Amit Bhai Anil Chandra Shah v. CBI (2013) 6 SCC 348

The above case provided clarity that FIRs can be clubbed when the offences are part of the same transaction, but not when they are distinct.

-        Facts: Related to the Sohrab Uddin fake encounter case, where multiple FIRs and investigations were underway.

-        Held: The Court reiterated that a second FIR for the same transaction is not valid. However, a second FIR can be registered if it concerns a distinctly separate offence.

3. Babubhai v. State of Gujarat (2010) 12 SCC 254

The significance of this case introduced that, the "same transaction" test for determining whether FIRs should be clubbed.

-        Held: If two incidents are so interrelated that they form part of the same transaction, then only one FIR should be filed and investigated.

4. Surender Kaushik v. State of U.P. (2013) 5 SCC 148

It was established that cross-cases can be clubbed and investigated simultaneously.

-        Facts: Cross FIRs were lodged by rival parties for the same incident.

-        Held: The Court held that cross FIRs are permissible but they must be investigated together to avoid contradiction and ensure a fair trial.

5. Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash (2004) 13 SCC 292

The significance of the above case was that it differentiated between barred duplicate FIRs and valid counter-FIRs, guiding when clubbing is appropriate.

-        Held: Clarified T.T. Antony by stating that while multiple FIRs for the same incident are barred, counter-FIRs (cross-complaints) are valid when they come from a different version of the same incident.

What are the Key Principles Evolved?

Few key principles evolved from clubbing of FIR’s were: -

1. Same Transaction Test: FIRs relating to the same set of facts or a continuing offence can be clubbed.

2. Distinct Offences: FIRs relating to different offences or transactions cannot be clubbed.

3. Counter FIRs: Permissible but should be investigated together.

4. Judicial Discretion: Courts use their inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to order clubbing of FIRs in the interest of justice.

Conclusion

Clubbing of FIRs is a judicially evolved concept to prevent misuse of criminal law, reduce multiplicity, and promote fairness. The Supreme Court has consistently emphasized the need to avoid multiple FIRs for the same incident while safeguarding the right to file counter-claims. The doctrine ensures that justice is not just done, but done efficiently and fairly.

Date: 18th July 2025.