THE STATE (NCT) OF DELHI v. KHIMJI BHAI JADEJA
Consolidation of FIRs: Supreme Court Clarifies "Same Transaction" Test in Cheating Cases Involving Multiple Complainants; Magistrate's Discretion in Framing Charges.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: 2026 INSC 25
Decision Date: 06-01-2026
List of Laws
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; The Indian Penal Code, 1860; Article 142 of the Constitution of India
- Facts: An FIR was registered against Khimji Bhai Jadeja for allegedly cheating numerous investors by falsely promising to triple their money using divine powers. The investigation revealed 1,852 victims with losses totaling ₹46.40 crores. The Additional Sessions Judge referred three questions of law to the Delhi High Court regarding whether each deposit constitutes a separate transaction, how many transactions can be amalgamated into one charge sheet, and whether the concept of maximum punishment for a single offence applies when transactions are clubbed.
- Procedural Posture: The State (NCT of Delhi) appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the Delhi High Court's answers to the questions referred by the Additional Sessions Judge. The High Court had opined that each deposit constitutes a separate transaction and cannot be amalgamated into a single FIR, and that separate final reports must be filed for each FIR.
- Issue: The core issue is whether offences committed against numerous complainants, arising from a conspiracy to cheat, constitute a single transaction allowing for consolidation of charges, or whether each offence must be treated separately, requiring individual FIRs and trials.
- Holding: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's answers to the first two questions, holding that the determination of whether the offences form part of the 'same transaction' is a matter for the Magistrate to consider based on the chargesheets filed. The Court emphasized that if the offences are part of the same transaction, the Magistrate is entitled to charge and try them together.
- Reasoning: The Court relied on previous judgments, including S. Swamirathnam vs. State of Madras and Cheemalapati Ganeswara Rao, to reiterate the principles for determining what constitutes the 'same transaction'. It highlighted the triple tests of unity of purpose and design, proximity of time and place, and continuity of action. The Court also referred to Narinderjit Singh Sahni and another vs. Union of India and others, emphasizing that each individual deposit agreement had to be treated as a separate and individual transaction. The Court concluded that the Magistrate should determine whether the various acts of cheating constitute part of the 'same transaction' under Sections 220(1) and 223 CrPC, based on the chargesheets. The Court also noted that the reference to the High Court was premature, as the investigation was still ongoing.
🔒 For Members Only