“The Sidhu Consolidation Doctrine” – Supreme Court Introduces a Uniform Mechanism for Clubbing Multiple FIRs Within Each State and Deems Subsequent FIRs as Statements u/§161 CrPC

1. Introduction

Ravinder Singh Sidhu v. State of Punjab (2025 INSC 727) presented the Supreme Court of India with a labyrinth of 64 First Information Reports (FIRs) spanning ten States, all linked to alleged fraudulent land-allotment investment schemes floated by KIM Infrastructure and Developers Ltd. (KIDL). Originally, the petitioner sought transfer of all cases to Panchkula, Haryana. Having failed in an earlier attempt (WP(Crl.) 206/2020), he narrowed his prayer to consolidation of the numerous FIRs intra-state. The Court, invoking its powers under Articles 32 and 142 of the Constitution, accepted this limited plea and carved out a distinct procedural rule governing:

• How and where multiple FIRs in different districts of the same State should be clubbed;
• The legal status of later FIRs after such clubbing;
• The ripple effect on charge-sheets, bail orders, special statutes and cognate trials.

The resulting decision crystallises what this commentary labels the “Sidhu Consolidation Doctrine.”

2. Summary of the Judgment

The bench (CJI B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan, J.) ordered that:

1. In each State, all FIRs subsequent to the first in time (“principal FIR”) shall be merged with that principal FIR.
2. The merged FIRs will be treated merely as statements under §161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).
3. Investigating Officers (IOs) may file supplementary charge-sheets in the principal FIR after collating material from the merged FIRs.
4. Where cognizance has already been taken in a merged FIR, the case file stands transferred to the court seized of the principal FIR.
5. Bail granted in the principal FIR automatically extends to the merged cases, except where additional offences (especially under State Special Depositors Acts) are involved, in which event fresh bail applications may be insisted upon.
6. Because Delhi and Chhattisgarh each had only one FIR, no consolidation was ordered there.

As a by-product, the decision clarifies that offences under local Protection of Interest of Depositors Acts can be tried together with Indian Penal Code (IPC) charges by the Special Courts constituted under those Acts.

3. Analytical Commentary

3.1 Precedents Cited and their Influence

• Radhey Shyam v. State of Haryana, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1935
• Abhishek Singh Chauhan v. Union of India, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1936

Both 2022 decisions laid down the broad proposition that multiplicity of criminal proceedings is antithetical to a fair and efficient justice system, and that clubbing related FIRs is preferred over inter-State transfers when local special statutes are involved. The Court recycled this logic, explicitly following it (“We propose to follow the said course of action,” para 11).

Though not expressly cited, older benchmarks silently shaped the Court’s approach:

• T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC 181 – which holds that a second FIR for the same transaction is not permissible; and
• Amish Devgan v. Union of India, (2021) 1 SCC 1 – which allowed consolidation where multiple FIRs alleged identical offences.

Unlike T.T. Antony which bars a second FIR altogether, Sidhu accepts their existence but downgrades them to investigative statements. This subtle distinction deals pragmatically with the real-life scenario that numerous FIRs had already been registered and partially investigated.

3.2 The Court’s Legal Reasoning

1. Public Interest & Judicial Economy – Simultaneous trials across different districts cause redundant investigations, contradictory findings, increased incarceration and resource drain. Clubbing fosters coherent fact-finding.
2. Special Statutes Constraint – Many FIRs invoked State depositor-protection Acts that mandate territorial jurisdiction of local Special Courts. Hence, inter-State transfer would strip those courts of statutorily conferred powers.
3. Article 142 as a Gap-Filler – The CrPC lacks a ready-made provision for cross-district consolidation within a State when multiple FIRs already exist. Article 142 empowers the Supreme Court to craft equitable solutions. Calling the earliest FIR “principal” and the rest “§161 statements” is a judicial innovation bridging this statutory gap.
4. Consistency with §173 & §190 CrPC – When supplementary charge-sheets are filed, the magistrate/court that took cognizance of the principal FIR can encompass the newly surfaced offences without re-commencing the case, satisfying §173(8) CrPC.
5. Bail Parity Doctrine – Requiring the accused to move separate bail applications in each identical FIR militates against liberty. Automatic extension of the main bail order balances personal liberty with public interest.

3.3 Potential Impact

Short-Term

• Immediate cessation of parallel trials in eight States, resulting in logistical coherence for the judiciary, investigating agencies and defence alike.
• Prisons may witness reduced under-trial detention duplication, as bail in the principal FIR now governs subsidiary cases.

Long-Term

• Establishment of a ready template for High Courts and subordinate courts to follow; expect more consolidation applications within States rather than across States.
• Anchors the jurisdiction of Special Courts under Depositors Acts, elevating them as single-window forums for composite economic offences.
• Potential legislative response: Government may consider amending CrPC to include an explicit provision on intra-state FIR consolidation, codifying the Sidhu rule.
• Greater predictability encourages victims, prosecutors and accused to strategise cases with the knowledge that multiple FIRs may ultimately merge.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• First Information Report (FIR) – The document recorded by police when an offence is first reported; sets criminal law in motion.
• §161 CrPC Statement – Statement recorded by police during investigation. It is not substantive evidence but can be used for contradiction at trial.
• §173 CrPC Charge-Sheet – Final police report upon completion of investigation recommending prosecution.
• Supplementary Charge-Sheet – Additional report under §173(8) when fresh material surfaces after the initial charge-sheet.
• Article 142 of the Constitution – Empowers the Supreme Court to pass any order necessary for “complete justice,” even if not provided for by statute.
• Special Courts under Depositor Acts – State-enacted tribunals with exclusive jurisdiction over financial frauds affecting depositors.
• Principal FIR – A term coined by the Court for the earliest FIR in time within a State, deemed central for investigation and trial.

5. Conclusion

Ravinder Singh Sidhu v. State of Punjab heralds a pragmatic procedural tool that reconciles three competing imperatives: judicial efficiency, statutory territoriality and personal liberty. By transforming multiple FIRs into §161 statements and designating a principal FIR within each State, the Court has laid down a repeatable method—the Sidhu Consolidation Doctrine. Future litigants confronting a proliferation of identical or overlapping FIRs can now invoke this precedent to seek intra-state consolidation, confident that the Supreme Court has blessed such a course as consonant with public interest and legal coherence.

In the broader legal mosaic, the decision underlines the Supreme Court’s readiness to deploy Article 142 creatively, simultaneously advancing the goals of procedural simplicity, economic justice and human rights.