Allahabad HC directs 14 FIRs over alleged LUCC deposit-maturity fraud to be clubbed with the first case as one continuing transaction

The petitioner, Bharat Verma, was implicated in multiple FIRs concerning alleged non-payment of maturity amounts by depositors who had invested money in LUCC (Loni Urban Multi-State Credit & Thrift Co-operative Society).

The principal FIR, Case Crime No. 612 of 2024, was registered at Police Station Kotwali Lalitpur on 18 July 2024 under Sections 111, 318, 61(2), 352 and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, alleging that agents of LUCC induced depositors to invest their money on the promise of receiving double the amount after five years, but failed to repay the matured deposits and threatened the complainant when repayment was demanded.

Thereafter, thirteen further FIRs were registered at different police stations in Lalitpur concerning similar allegations, involving different complainants and, in several cases, overlapping accused persons.

The petitioner sought clubbing or consolidation of all subsequent FIRs with the principal FIR, treatment of the subsequent complaints as statements under Section 161 CrPC/Section 180 BNSS, transfer of cases in which cognizance had been taken, and extension of bail and protection from arrest.

Whether the subsequent FIRs, although lodged by different complainants at different police stations, arose from the same transaction or continuous occurrence as the principal FIR and were therefore impermissible as successive FIRs?

Whether the subsequent FIRs could be clubbed with Case Crime No. 612 of 2024, with their contents being treated as statements under Section 161 CrPC/Section 180 BNSS?

Whether FIRs in which charge-sheets had been filed or cognizance had been taken could be transferred and tried along with the principal FIR?

The Court applied the statutory scheme governing registration and investigation of cognizable offences under Sections 154, 156, 157, 162, 169, 170 and 173 CrPC, corresponding substantially to Sections 173, 174, 175, 176, 181, 189, 190 and 193 BNSS.

Under this scheme, only the first information relating to the same cognizable offence or occurrence constitutes the FIR; subsequent information concerning the same transaction is ordinarily to be treated as a statement forming part of the investigation, and further material may be submitted through further investigation and supplementary reports.

Relying on T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, Babubhai v. State of Gujarat, and Anju Chaudhary v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Court applied the “test of sameness”: a second FIR is impermissible where it concerns the same incident, occurrence or transaction, but is permissible where it relates to a distinct incident or a genuinely different version or counter-case.

The Court also relied on State (NCT of Delhi) v. Khimji Bhai Jadeja and Amit Katyal v. State of Haryana, recognising that offences committed against multiple victims may form part of one continuing conspiracy or transaction and that consolidation may prevent multiplicity of proceedings, conflicting findings and prejudice to the accused.

The Court compared the principal FIR with the subsequent FIRs and found that their foundational allegations were materially identical: depositors had invested money in LUCC on the basis of representations regarding enhanced maturity returns, repayment was allegedly withheld, and the accused persons were connected with the same company or operational structure.

Applying the test of sameness, the Court identified unity of incident, continuity of action, proximity in the underlying transactions, identical nature of allegations, and substantial similarity in the accused persons.

The fact that different complainants had invested different amounts or that the FIRs were registered at different police stations did not, in the Court’s view, change the character of the alleged continuing transaction.

Permitting every FIR to proceed independently would create avoidable multiplicity, possible conflicting findings and prejudice to the petitioner, and would amount to an abuse of the investigative process.

Accordingly, the Court treated the subsequent FIRs as part of the same continuing transaction and directed that they be investigated and proceeded with through the principal FIR.

All subsequent FIRs and proceedings arising from the same allegations were directed to be clubbed with it, and their contents were to be treated as statements under Section 161 CrPC/Section 180 BNSS.

Where a charge-sheet had not yet been submitted, the subsequent FIRs were ordered to be transferred to Police Station Kotwali Lalitpur for investigation with the principal FIR.

Where cognizance had already been taken, the connected criminal cases were directed to be transferred and tried by the court having jurisdiction over the principal FIR.

The Court thus granted consolidation-related relief on the basis of the test of sameness and same transaction, while disposing of the petition with the aforesaid directions.