Ravinder Singh Sidhu vs. The State Of Punjab

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
2025 INSC 727

WRIT PETITION (CRL.) NO. 394 OF 2024


RAVINDER SINGH SIDHU PETITIONER(s)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. RESPONDENT(s)



J U D G M E N T


K.V. Viswanathan, J.
1. The present Writ Petition has been filed seeking to issue an
appropriate writ, order or direction for clubbing and transferring the
multiple First Information Reports (FIRs) registered against the
petitioner in different States to the Court of competent jurisdiction at
Panchkula, Haryana. Though this is the prayer made in the petition,
learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner states that he would only
Signature Not Verified
press for consolidation of the multiple FIRs in each of the States to
Digitally signed by
Deepak Guglani
Date: 2025.05.19
16:05:29 IST
Reason:
one district within the respective States. It should also be noticed that
1


as far as the original prayer made in the petition is concerned, on
facts, it was clearly not maintainable since a similar prayer made by
the petitioner in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 206 of 2020 filed in this
Court on 20.07.2020 was rejected on 17.08.2020. Considering the
fact that the petitioner is now seeking the alternative prayer and the
respective States during the hearing have not objected to the same, we
have decided to entertain the petition in the special facts and
circumstances of the case.
2. In all, there are 64 FIRs registered in 10 States. The States
concerned which are parties to the writ petition are Punjab (23 FIRs),
Madhya Pradesh (2 FIRs), Haryana (6 FIRs), Gujarat (4 FIRs),
Chhattisgarh (1 FIR), NCT of Delhi (1 FIR), Uttarakhand (5 FIRs),
Rajasthan (5 FIRs), Uttar Pradesh (15 FIRs) and Himachal Pradesh
(2 FIRs).
3. It should also be mentioned that, out of the above, already trial
is concluded in some and in three cases convictions have been
recorded. In two cases acquittals have been recorded, in two cases
there have been cancellation reports, 15 cases are at the evidence
2


stage and 21 cases are at the stage where charge-sheets have been
filed. We are not concerned with the cases where convictions or
acquittals have been recorded or in some cases where cancellation
reports are filed.
4. The different FIRs are primarily for offences under Sections
406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120B, 34, 263, 114 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). Some of the Sections referred to
herein have been invoked in a few FIRs and in some all the Sections
have been invoked. Along with this in some FIRs the local Acts of
the State like the Gujarat Police Act, 1951, the Haryana Protection of
Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishment Act, 2013, the Prize
Chits And Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978, the
Madhya Pradesh Nikshepakon Ke Hiton Ka Sanrakshan Adhiniyam ,
2000 and the Uttarakhand Protection of Interests of Depositors (in
Financial Establishments) Act, 2005 have been invoked depending
upon the State concerned.
5. The petitioner herein Ravinder Singh Sidhu has been in custody
since 11.10.2018. He was the Managing Director of KIM
3


Infrastructure and Developers Limited (for short ‘KIDL’). The
petitioner along with other directors is alleged to have floated two
schemes for allotment of developed land where customers were lured
to be part of a lumpsum payment plan or a deferred payment plan.
6. When the matters stood thus, Writ Petition No. 3332 of 2010
was filed before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at its Gwalior
Bench for inquiry against financial companies including ‘KIDL’, on
the ground that the companies were seeking deposits from the public
with promise of repayment with higher returns ranging from 15 to 20
per cent. The High Court ordered an inquiry by the Central Bureau of
Investigation (CBI). The CBI conducted a preliminary investigation
and submitted a report concluding that many of the named companies
indulged in profiteering schemes without even having the capacity to
repay along with the promised rate of return.
7. On 13.07.2012, the Writ Petition was disposed of by the High
Court with a direction to the concerned authorities to take appropriate
action in accordance with law. Pursuant thereto, the Securities and
Exchange Board of India (SEBI) initiated inquiry against ‘KIDL’.
4


KIDL’s attempt to get the scheme registered as a Collective
Investment Scheme (CIS) was rejected on the ground that possessing
a registration was a pre-condition for initiating/launching/sponsoring
(CIS) under the SEBI Act, 1992. Certain proceedings were taken by
SEBI with which we are not directly concerned here.
8. In the meantime, the first FIR came to be registered against
KIDL and its directors by investors as well as by agents appointed by
KIDL for mobilizing the investment money. As stated earlier,
multiple FIRs came to be registered alleging commission of diverse
offences due to default in honoring the commitments and due to
failure of KIDL and the petitioner to repay the amounts. It is in this
background that the present Writ Petition came to be filed.
9. Notices were issued in the Writ Petition and the States of
Uttarakhand, Punjab, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Gujarat and Uttar
Pradesh have filed counter affidavits. Though in the counter
affidavits, the States have opposed the clubbing, at the hearing there
was a broad consensus about consolidating the cases in the respective
States.
5


10. Heard learned Senior Counsel/Counsel for the parties. The law
in this issue is now fairly well settled. It has been held by this Court
that multiplicity of proceedings will not be in larger public interest.
Further, since many States have invoked local Acts, particularly the
Act dealing with the Protection of Interest of Depositors, transferring
them out of the State also will not serve the ends of justice. Hence, the
correct course of action would be to merge the FIRs with the earliest
FIR in the State concerned. It is clarified that if the first FIR in the
respective States of Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Madhya
Pradesh, Punjab, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand is
registered in respect of offence under the general law and not the
special enactment, but if the subsequent FIRs now clubbed are
registered in connection with the special law or registered also in
connection with the special law, the same after clubbing must be tried
under the special law by the Special Court(s). [See Radhey Shyam v.
State of Haryana and Ors. , 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1935 and
Abhishek Singh Chauhan v. Union of India and Ors. , 2022 SCC
OnLine SC 1936].
6


11. We propose to follow the said course of action. In view of the above
in the State of Gujarat , the following 3 FIRs will now be merged with
FIR No. I-79/2018 dated 27.09.2018 registered at Bhavnagar Gangajaliya.

12. In the State of Haryana , the following 5 FIRs will now be
merged with FIR No. 24/2018 dated 16.01.2018 registered at Ambala
P.S. Ambala Cant.

7


13. In the State of Himachal Pradesh , the following FIR will now
be merged with FIR No. 13/2019 registered at Hamirpur, P.S.
Sujanpur Tira.

14. In the State of Madhya Pradesh , the following FIR will now be
merged with FIR No. 496/2018 dated 05.12.2018 registered at
Jabalpur P.S. Lordganj.

15. In the State of Punjab , the following 16 FIRs will now be
merged with FIR No. 198/2018 dated 23.10.2018 registered at SAS
Nagar, P.S. Phase I.

8

16. In the State of Rajasthan , the following 3 FIRs will now be
merged with FIR No. 878/2018 dated 20.11.2018 registered at Karauli
P.S. Hindon.

9


17. In the State of Uttar Pradesh , the following 14 FIRs will now
be merged with FIR No. 28/2019 dated 13.01.2019 registered at Basti
P.S. Kotwali.

10


18. In the State of Uttarakhand , the following 4 FIRs will now be
merged with FIR No. 107/2018 dated 30.10.2018 registered at
Pithoragarh P.S. Kotwali Pithoragarh.

19. The writ petition stands allowed in the above terms. We further
direct while the first FIR will be treated as the First Information
Report (hereinafter for convenience called the ‘principal FIR’), the
subsequent FIRs in each State shall be treated as Statements under
Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). The
Investigating Officer in the criminal case arising out of the principal
FIR in the concerned State will be free to file supplementary charge-
sheets after the collation of all records concerning other FIRs in the
concerned State which are clubbed in terms of this order. We further
direct that if Police Report under Section 173 of CrPC stands already
11


filed in the clubbed FIRs and the concerned Courts have taken
cognizance thereof, the said FIRs and criminal cases would also stand
transferred and merged/clubbed along with the principal FIR to be
proceeded with in accordance with law.
20. The investigating officer in the principal proceedings will be
free to file supplementary charge-sheet on the basis of the material
collated during investigation of other FIRs. We also make it clear that
the other offences not part of the special enactments can also be tried
by the Special Court under the concerned State legislation. We also
further direct that in case the petitioner has been granted bail in
connection with the principal proceeding/criminal case to which the
other cases have been clubbed, the bail so granted must enure to the
petitioner’s favour in the other FIRs now clubbed as well. We further
clarify that if the principal FIR is limited to offence under the general
law/Penal Code but the subsequent FIRs contain allegations attracting
offences under the special enactment or certain other IPC offences
and if the bail granted is only for some offences under the general
law, the Special Court is entitled to insist for a fresh bail application
to be filed by the petitioner in relation to those offences including
12


under the Special Act. The said bail application(s) shall be decided
on its own merits in accordance with law.
21. We make it clear that our direction is confined to the offences
mentioned in the present order, namely, the offences under the IPC
and the concerned State enactment mentioned herein.
22. As far as the State of Chhattisgarh and NCT of Delhi are
concerned, since there is only one case each, the said case will
proceed in those States in accordance with law and the question of
clubbing does not arise. We have passed the above order in exercise
of powers under Article 32 read with our powers under Article 142 of
the Constitution of India.

……….........................CJI.

[ B. R. GAVAI ]


..……….........................J.
[ K. V. VISWANATHAN ]

New Delhi;
th

19 May, 2025.
13