Article 32 petition for quashing or clubbing FIRs is not maintainable for distinct cyber fraud transactions.

The Petitioner, a merchant navy professional, filed a Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India seeking the quashing or, alternatively, the clubbing of four FIRs registered against him in Maharashtra, Karnataka, and Odisha

The FIRs allege cyber-fraud where complainants were coerced into transferring money to a bank account belonging to the Petitioner’s proprietary concern, "M/s Al Zeba Marinen Overseas"

The Petitioner contended he was abroad during the incidents and had permitted third parties to use his account for an online gaming business, subsequently filing his own cyber-complaint when he discovered the misuse

The Court emphasized that while Article 32 is the "heart and soul" of the Constitution, it is an extraordinary remedy to be used sparingly when fundamental rights are infringed

It relied on Arnab Ranjan Goswami v. Union of India, holding that petitioners should ordinarily be relegated to High Courts under Section 482 CrPC unless exceptional grounds exist

Regarding the clubbing of FIRs, the Court applied the "test of sameness" from T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala and Babubhai v. State of Gujarat, which prohibits successive FIRs for the "same transaction"

It further utilized the triple tests of unity of purpose, proximity of time/place, and continuity of action from State (NCT of Delhi) v. Khimji Bhai Jadeja to define a single transaction

The Court found that the Petitioner failed to establish a "palpable violation" of fundamental rights or "exceptional circumstances" that would justify bypassing the statutory remedies available under Section 482 CrPC or Article 226

Regarding the prayer for clubbing, the Court reasoned that although the modus operandi was similar, the incidents involved distinct victims, different dates, and independent financial losses across three states

Applying the "test of sameness," the Court determined these were separate transactions rather than a single continuous occurrence

It further noted that a composite investigation at this nascent stage would impede the forensic tracing of money trails and cause undue hardship to rural victims

The Court held that the Petitioner must pursue available remedies before the respective High Courts

It clarified that while the Petitioner suffers from health ailments, this does not override the legal requirement for separate trials where offences against distinct victims are disclosed

Liberty was reserved for the Petitioner to approach appropriate forums for relief in accordance with the law