The Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh entertains petitions for clubbing or consolidating multiple First Information Reports (FIRs) under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (formerly Section 482 of the CrPC) when they stem from the same transaction or set of allegations.

A High Court can club multiple First Information Reports (FIRs) only if they arise from the exact same incident or continuous transaction with identical facts. It cannot consolidate nationwide FIRs involving separate witnesses, evidence, or distinct geographical locations into a single proceeding.

Legal Principles for Clubbing FIRs

Same Transaction Rule: The High Court and the Supreme Court maintain that multiple FIRs for the same single occurrence or continuous transaction are impermissible and lead to an abuse of the judicial process.

Identical Allegations: Clubbing is granted only if the core facts, ingredients of the offense, and basic transactions match. Distinct and separate incidents with different witnesses cannot be merged.

Relief Sought: Petitioners typically ask the High Court at Chandigarh to merge the investigation/trials into one primary case and extend interim protections or bail-order benefits across identical matters.

A recent notable instance at the High Court involves a plea by Navneet Chaturvedi seeking the consolidation of multiple identical forgery/allegation FIRs tied to a Punjab Rajya Sabha election nomination controversy.

Legal Principles for Clubbing FIRs

The “Test of Sameness”: Subsequent FIRs on the exact same cause and occurrence are impermissible, and later complaints are typically treated as statements under Section 161/162 of the CrPC/BNSS rather than independent cases.

Intra-State vs. Inter-State limits: While High Courts may permit consolidation of multiple FIRs within the same state for identical transactions, the Supreme Court has ruled that nationwide or multi-state consolidation across different jurisdictions and witnesses is legally impermissible.

High Court Powers: High Courts generally entertain petitions for clubbing or quashing under inherent powers (Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, replacing Section 482 of the CrPC), but will reject blanket requests that seek to cover unrelated transactions or future anticipated FIRs.

Clubbing of FIRs in Immigration Matter

In this scenario, a High Court will likely refuse to club the FIRs into a single case, even though they are within the same state.Because the visa applicants were refused at different time intervals, the judiciary treats each refusal as a distinct transaction involving a separate victim, unique evidence, and separate financial amounts.

Why the High Court Rejects Clubbing in This Case

The “Same Transaction” Test Fails: For FIRs to be clubbed, the crimes must be part of a single, continuous chain of events. In migration consultancies or travel agency scams, a different date or application package constitutes a brand new, independent transaction.

Modus Operandi is Irrelevant: The Supreme Court in Odela Satyam v. State of Telangana clarified that having a “similar modus operandi”—meaning using the same trick or method to dupe multiple clients—is not a valid legal ground to merge the cases.

Different Sets of Witnesses and Evidence: Each applicant’s visa profile, documentation, financial exchange, refusal letter, and statement form an isolated piece of evidence. Bundling them complicates the trial, which infringes on the right to a clean prosecution.

Alternative Judicial Solutions

If you represent the accused or an agency facing multiple FIRs in this situation, a blanket clubbing petition under Section 528 of the BNSS (formerly Section 482 of the CrPC) will fail.

However, you can seek these specific procedural reliefs from the High Court:

Consolidation of Investigations: You can pray that all FIRs be transferred to a single specialized investigating unit (such as the Economic Offences Wing or a centralized Crime Branch) within the state to prevent police from demanding duplicate physical appearances at ten different local stations.

Joint Trial Petition: Once the police file charge sheets for all the FIRs, you can move an application before the trial court under Section 242 of the BNSS (formerly Section 219 CrPC) to hold a joint trial if the offenses are of the same kind and occurred within the span of one year.

Protection Against Coercive Steps: You can request the High Court to pass orders directing that transit bail or interim protection apply across all current identical FIRs so that local police cannot execute cyclic arrests (arresting the accused in a second FIR immediately after they get bail in the first).

Legally, you cannot combine them because they cover a span of three years. Under Indian criminal law (Section 242 of the BNSS / Section 219 of the CrPC), offenses can only be joint if they are of the same kind and occurred within a maximum window of one year. Furthermore, because no charge sheet has been filed, the matters are still in the investigation stage, meaning the High Court will not interfere with the police’s independent right to investigate separate complaints.

The Immediate Legal RisksCyclic Arrests: This is your biggest threat. If the police arrest the accused in FIR No. 1, the moment bail is granted, the police can formally arrest them inside the jail for FIR No. 2. This cycle can keep the accused incarcerated for months.

Harassment by Multiple Police Stations: The accused might be forced to travel to different police stations across the state simultaneously to join the investigations, leading to parallel harassment.

Your Best Strategic Options in the High Court, Since blanket clubbing is ruled out, your legal counsel should approach the High Court under Section 528 of the BNSS (formerly Section 482 of the CrPC) for the following specific reliefs:

Transfer to a Single Investigating Agency:Pray to the High Court to transfer all 6 pending investigations to one single agency, such as the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) or the Crime Branch of the state. Argue that since the nature of the allegations (immigration fraud) and the accused are identical, a single specialized agency will ensure a streamlined, fair investigation.

Clubbing of Investigations (Not Trials):While the High Court won’t club the cases for trial, you can request that the investigations be clubbed. This means all 6 files are handled by one Investigating Officer (IO), and the accused only needs to join the investigation once, rather than answering 6 different police officers.

Interim Protection Against Coercive Action:Seek a blanket order from the High Court stating that if the accused joins the investigation and cooperates, the police cannot take coercive steps (arrest) in any of the 6 existing FIRs without prior permission from the court. This effectively stops the cyclic arrest strategy.

More on 99888-17966