No Pan‑India Clubbing of FIRs for Multi‑State Financial Frauds; Only Intra‑State Consolidation Permissible and No Pre‑Emptive Clubbing of Future FIRs — Commentary on Pavan Kumar Odela v. State of Telangana (2025 INSC 1174)

Introduction

In Pavan Kumar Odela v. State of Telangana, 2025 INSC 1174 (decided on 26 September 2025), a two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court of India (B.R. Gavai, CJI and K. Vinod Chandran, J.) addressed a recurring plea seen in large-scale financial fraud prosecutions: whether multiple First Information Reports (FIRs) registered across different States, arising from similar allegations and modus operandi, can be “clubbed” and investigated/tried at a single place, and whether courts can order consolidation of not only existing but also future FIRs.

The petitioners comprised individuals connected to the management of a firm (referred to in record extracts as “Falcon Invoice Discounting Firm”), and certain relatives. They sought (i) consolidation of numerous FIRs lodged in Telangana, Karnataka, Maharashtra, West Bengal, Delhi, Andhra Pradesh and Rajasthan, and (ii) a blanket direction that all future FIRs on the “same cause of action” also be clubbed to the first FIR. The State of Telangana, whose Economic Offences Wing (EOW), Cyberabad had registered the maximum number of FIRs, opposed the plea on the ground that the alleged defalcations were distinct transactions occurring in different jurisdictions, sometimes invoking State-specific depositor protection statutes, thereby making a pan-India consolidation both legally untenable and practically unworkable.

The Court decisively rejected a nationwide clubbing of FIRs and the request to pre‑emptively club future cases. It nevertheless ordered limited intra‑State transfer of overlapping matters within Telangana and Maharashtra for investigative coherence. It also granted calibrated bail-related protections to accused who had suffered incarceration or faced imminent arrest, and issued a victim-centric direction ensuring costs for witness travel if necessitated by the Court-ordered intra-State transfers.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court refused the “overambitious and outright illegal” prayer to club multiple FIRs registered across different States, and categorically held that no court can grant an anticipatory consolidation of future FIRs.
Distinguishing cases where multiple FIRs arise out of the same occurrence, the Court found the present allegations involve separate investor transactions spread across jurisdictions with State-specific offences; hence, nationwide consolidation is impermissible.
Limited consolidation ordered:
- Telangana: FIR registered at Madhapur, Cyberabad transferred to EOW, Cyberabad, where three FIRs were already pending.
- Maharashtra: FIR from Wagle Estate, Thane City transferred to Ambazari, Nagpur City, where an earlier FIR existed.
- Requests to club single FIRs in Karnataka, West Bengal, Delhi, Andhra Pradesh and Rajasthan were rejected.
Witness cost direction: If trial requires prosecution witnesses to travel because of the Court-directed intra-State transfer of FIRs, trial courts must award travel/residence costs to be paid by the accused through court.
Interim bail protection:
- Accused already in custody to be released on bail on conditions to be set by the jurisdictional Magistrate, including cooperation.
- Others against whom warrants are pending shall not be arrested for six months; production warrants will not be acted upon during this period.
- Within six months, all petitioners must appear before concerned courts and seek regular bail, which should be considered the same day on appropriate conditions; failure to cooperate can invite cancellation.
The writ petitions were disposed of accordingly; pending applications stood disposed.

Factual Matrix and Procedural Background

Multiple FIRs, largely alleging cheating/defalcation of funds collected from unsuspecting investors/depositors through an invoice discounting scheme, were registered during February–April 2025 in:

Telangana (four FIRs, including three with EOW, Cyberabad and one at Madhapur, Cyberabad), invoking provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) such as sections 316(2), 318(4) and 61(2), alongside the Telangana Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999.
Karnataka (Cybercrime PS, Bengaluru City), invoking BNS, Information Technology Act, 2000 section 66C/66D, and the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019 (BUDS Act) section 21.
Maharashtra (Ambazari, Nagpur City; Wagle Estate, Thane City).
West Bengal (Laketown, Bidhannagar).
Delhi (EOW, New Delhi; also invoking the Delhi Protection of Interest of Depositors Act, 2001).
Andhra Pradesh (Amalapuram Town; BNS and IT Act provisions).
Rajasthan (Sardarpura, Jodhpur).

While a common “modus” was alleged, the State contended that individual complaints by investors/depositors involved distinct transactions, different complainants and varying statutory overlays (including State depositor protection laws), thus negating the premise of a singular “same occurrence.”

Issues Considered

Whether the Supreme Court should club multiple FIRs filed across different States, and further direct the clubbing of any future FIRs into a single police station where the first FIR was registered.
Whether, and to what extent, precedents on multiple FIRs (particularly those arising from the same incident/occurrence) apply to diffuse, multi-State financial fraud allegations involving separate transactions and State-specific offences.
Whether limited consolidation within a State is permissible for investigative efficiency without compromising the rights of victims and practical feasibility of trial.

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

1) Amandeep Singh Govind Saran v. State of Delhi & Anr., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1851

The Court invoked Amandeep Singh to underscore that sweeping prayers to club multi-State FIRs—and particularly to club future, yet-to-be-filed FIRs—are “overambitious” and not countenanced by law. Amandeep Singh had clarified that such forward-looking consolidation orders are beyond judicial power, especially absent a unifying occurrence or statutory basis. The present case adopts this stance in rejecting a blanket pan-India clubbing and the prayer concerning future FIRs.

2) Radhey Shyam v. State of Haryana, W.P. (Crl.) No. 75 of 2020 (order dated 12.05.2022)

Petitioners relied on Radhey Shyam to argue that similar consolidation was earlier granted. The Court clarified, consistent with Amandeep Singh, that Radhey Shyam was an exceptional exercise of Article 142 powers, and importantly, it proceeded with the consent of the States. It is not a general precedent that can be mechanically applied. This limits the replicability of Radhey Shyam outside the Article 142/consent framework.

3) Amish Devgan v. Union Of India, (2021) 1 SCC 1

Amish Devgan dealt with multiple FIRs arising from the same televised broadcast alleged to have hurt religious sentiments. There, the Court—leaning on T.T. Antony—treated subsequent FIRs as statements under section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) and transferred later FIRs to the police station where the first FIR stood, to avoid multiplicity for a single occurrence. In the present case, the Court distinguished Amish Devgan on facts: unlike a single broadcast/incident, here the allegations involve numerous separate investor transactions across jurisdictions. Thus, the same-occurrence consolidation rationale did not apply.

4) T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC 181, and Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash, (2004) 13 SCC 292

T.T. Antony established that there can be no “second FIR” for the same occurrence/incident, though additional information can be recorded under section 162 CrPC. Upkar Singh clarified that T.T. Antony does not bar counter-complaints by the opposite side. The present judgment relies on these to demarcate between:

Multiple FIRs about the very same incident (impermissible after the first, save as statements), and
Multiple FIRs regarding different incidents/transactions, even if the modus is similar (permissible and to be separately investigated/tried).

5) Amanat Ali v. State of Karnataka, (2023) 14 SCC 801

In Amanat Ali—also involving a claimed scam—the Court applied Amish Devgan narrowly and used Article 142 to permit consolidation only within one State (Madhya Pradesh), explicitly rejecting transfer of cases pending in Karnataka and Jharkhand. The present decision aligns with that approach: limited intra-State consolidation for efficiency, not pan-India transfers.

Legal Reasoning

A) Same Modus ≠ Same Occurrence

The Court emphasized that while the alleged modus operandi of defrauding investors through an invoice-discounting scheme may be “similar,” each FIR arises from distinct investor transactions across different locales. This is not a situation of repeated FIRs about a single broadcast or a single episode. Hence, the T.T. Antony/Amish Devgan bar on multiple FIRs for the same occurrence does not apply.

B) Federal Structure and State-Specific Offences

Many FIRs trigger State enactments protecting depositors (e.g., Telangana’s 1999 Act; Delhi’s 2001 Act) in addition to central statutes like the Information Technology Act, 2000 and the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019. These reflect local policy choices and enforcement imperatives. Clubbing across States would risk effacing State-specific offences and practicalities, undermining the federal policing framework and victim accessibility to justice.

C) Practical Unworkability of a Single Mega‑Trial

Even if a common accusation persists, the prosecution would require the testimony of numerous investors scattered across different States. A single pan-India trial would impose disproportionate travel/residence burdens on victims and witnesses and create procedural bottlenecks. The Court therefore rejected the premise of a nationwide “one-roof” investigation/trial.

D) Legislative Signal in BNSS Section 242

The Court referenced section 242 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)—successor to CrPC—which permits joinder at trial of “offences of the same kind” committed within 12 months, capped at five. This statutory limit undermines the notion of an open-ended, across-the-board consolidation of multiple offences cutting across time and geography. It supplies a clear legislative signal that joinder is exceptional, circumscribed, and trial-centric—far from the sweeping clubbing prayed for.

E) Calibrated Intra‑State Consolidation

Recognizing potential overlaps and for investigative coherence, the Court permitted transfer within Telangana (to the specialized EOW, Cyberabad) and within Maharashtra (to Ambazari, Nagpur City), where multiple FIRs existed. This mirrors Amanat Ali’s approach: consolidation at the State level to reduce duplication, without compromising local jurisdiction and victim convenience across the Union.

F) Bail and Witness‑Cost Safeguards

The Court balanced denial of pan-India clubbing with individual liberty and victim-centric measures:

Bail/Protection: Those in custody to be released on conditions; those with pending warrants protected from arrest for six months, during which they must secure regular bail; cooperation is mandatory and failure invites cancellation.
Witness Costs: Where intra-State transfers result from this order and require prosecution witnesses to travel, trial courts shall award travel/residence costs payable by the accused through court, mitigating prejudice to victims emanating from consolidation.

Impact and Implications

1) Clear Limits on Clubbing Multiple FIRs

The judgment crystallizes a critical boundary: identical modus operandi across geographies does not justify pan-India clubbing of FIRs. Accused in multi-State financial frauds (including fintech and crypto-related matters) should not expect a single consolidated investigation or trial merely because schemes share common templates.

2) Intra‑State Consolidation as an Efficiency Tool

Courts may still direct intra-State consolidation (especially to specialized units like EOWs) when multiple FIRs exist within a State. This balances investigative economy with respect for State jurisdiction and victim convenience.

3) No Pre‑Emptive Clubbing of Future FIRs

Litigants can no longer plausibly seek blanket orders that any future FIRs be automatically absorbed by a chosen police station. Such prospective relief, the Court reiterates, is legally untenable.

4) Victim-Centric Procedural Safeguards

The direction on witness cost shifting is notable. It discourages accused-driven transfers that externalize inconvenience onto victims, and signals that consolidation orders will be accompanied by measures protecting complainants’ practical access to justice.

5) Guidance for Investigative Coordination

While rejecting pan-India clubbing, the reasoning encourages coordinated but jurisdiction-specific investigation—through inter-State police cooperation, information sharing, and contemporaneous prosecutions—without conflating distinct transactions into a monolithic case.

6) BNSS Section 242’s Renewed Relevance

The Court’s reference to section 242 BNSS underscores trial courts’ power to join a limited number of same-kind offences within a 12‑month window. Prosecutors and defense should plan case strategy with this joinder ceiling in mind rather than expecting sweeping consolidation.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Clubbing of FIRs: Bringing multiple FIRs under one investigating agency or court to avoid duplication. Permissible only in narrow circumstances (e.g., multiple FIRs about a single occurrence). Not justified merely by a common modus operandi across different transactions/States.
Same Occurrence vs. Similar Modus: “Same occurrence” refers to the same incident/event (e.g., a single broadcast). “Similar modus” refers to a common pattern but different incidents; these remain distinct offences and can properly generate separate FIRs.
Article 142 of the Constitution: Empowers the Supreme Court to pass orders for complete justice. Exceptional consolidations (like in Radhey Shyam) are possible under Article 142, often requiring State consent; they are not general rules.
Section 162 CrPC (as discussed in precedents): Statements to police during investigation; subsequent FIRs about the same occurrence can be treated as such statements rather than separate FIRs.
BNSS, 2023 Section 242: Allows joinder of up to five offences of the same kind committed within 12 months at a single trial—signaling a narrow, statutory limit on consolidation.
Economic Offences Wing (EOW): Specialized State police units investigating complex financial crimes; consolidation to EOW within a State enhances coherence without erasing jurisdictional sovereignty.
Depositor Protection Laws: State-specific laws (e.g., Telangana 1999; Delhi 2001) that criminalize acts harming depositors, often supplementing central statutes like the IT Act and BUDS Act. Their application makes multi-State consolidation more complex.
Production Warrant: A warrant directing production of an accused already in custody before a court in another case. The Court paused acting on such warrants for six months to enable the accused to secure regular bail.
Protest Petition: If police file a closure report, a complainant may file a protest petition before the Magistrate to contest the closure and seek cognizance.

Directions on Bail and Interim Protection: Practical Takeaways

Accused already in jail: Eligible for release on bail, subject to conditions including cooperation.
Accused with pending warrants: Not to be arrested for six months; production warrants not to be acted upon in this period.
Within six months: All petitioners must approach the jurisdictional courts in the FIR cases for regular bail; those applications are to be considered the same day on appropriate conditions.
Non-cooperation: Investigating agencies may seek cancellation of bail upon violation of conditions.
Witness costs: When a trial venue shift within the State (ordered by this judgment) necessitates prosecution witness travel, trial courts must quantify and order costs payable by the accused.

Conclusion

Pavan Kumar Odela v. State of Telangana cements a clear doctrinal boundary in criminal process: multiple FIRs arising from distinct transactions across different States, even if animated by a similar modus operandi, cannot be pan‑India clubbed into a single investigation or trial. The judgment harmonizes and refines the principles from T.T. Antony, Upkar Singh, and Amish Devgan, and aligns with Amanat Ali in permitting only limited intra‑State consolidation for efficiency. By invoking section 242 BNSS, the Court signals statutory limits to joinder, disapproving open-ended consolidation and emphatically rejecting any pre‑emptive clubbing of future FIRs.

Equally, the Court balances accused’s liberty interests and victims’ practical burdens: offering temporary bail protections while ensuring that any transfer-driven inconvenience to witnesses is compensated by the accused. Going forward, this decision will likely curb forum shopping and overly ambitious consolidation pleas in multi‑State financial frauds, while encouraging jurisdiction-sensitive, coordinated investigations that respect the federal structure and victim access to justice.

Case Details: Pavan Kumar Odela v. State of Telangana & Ors., W.P. (Crl.) D.No. 26673 of 2025 with W.P. (Crl.) Nos. 269, 313, 320, 321, 319 of 2025; Supreme Court of India (Criminal Original Jurisdiction); Judgment dated 26-09-2025; Coram: B.R. Gavai, CJI and K. Vinod Chandran, J.; Citation: 2025 INSC 1174 (Non-Reportable).