Merchant Ship Officer Sought Quashing or Consolidation of Four Cyber Fraud FIRs Across Maharashtra, Karnataka and Odisha; Supreme Court Declines Relief
Facts
The petitioner, Rutvij Bhagat Singh Wakhare, approached the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking quashing of four First Information Reports registered in Maharashtra, Karnataka and Odisha.
In the alternative, he requested that all four FIRs be clubbed and consolidated and that a single investigating agency be directed to conduct one composite investigation.
The FIRs related to separate incidents of cyber fraud. According to the complaints, unknown persons contacted the victims while impersonating police officials. The victims were allegedly told that bank accounts or financial transactions connected with their identities were involved in money-laundering activities.
On the pretext of conducting verification or investigation, the fraudsters induced the victims to transfer substantial amounts of money into different bank accounts.
A portion of the money transferred by the victims was allegedly credited to a bank account maintained in the name of M/s Al Zeba Marinen Overseas, a proprietary concern belonging to the petitioner.
The petitioner was not expressly named as an accused in all the subject FIRs. However, the bank account belonging to his proprietary concern was referred to as one of the accounts through which part of the alleged proceeds of crime had travelled.
The FIRs were as follows:
- FIR No. 0275 of 2024, registered at Central CEN Crime Police Station, Bengaluru City;
- FIR No. 0412 of 2024, registered at East CEN Crime Police Station, Bengaluru City;
- FIR No. 0499 of 2024, registered at Pune City Cyber Police Station;
- FIR No. 0032 of 2024, registered at Cyber Police Station, Rourkela, Odisha.
The allegations involved offences of cheating, impersonation, extortion, criminal intimidation, forgery, criminal conspiracy and cyber offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Information Technology Act.
The petitioner denied having any role in the alleged cyber fraud.
According to him, he had allowed one of his friends, Ganesh Khaire, to use the bank account of his proprietary concern on a commission basis for operating an online gaming business. He claimed that the account was thereafter operated by Ganesh Khaire and another person, Krishnakant Sharma.
The petitioner further stated that after learning about the alleged misuse of the account, he lodged a cybercrime complaint on 9 May 2024 against those persons, accusing them of fraudulently using his concern’s bank account for unlawful transactions.
On this basis, the petitioner sought either complete quashing of the FIRs or their consolidation into a single case.
Issues
The Supreme Court considered the following principal issues:
- Whether a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking quashing of FIRs was maintainable before the Supreme Court.
- Whether the petitioner had established exceptional circumstances or violation of any fundamental right warranting direct interference by the Supreme Court.
- Whether the four FIRs registered in different States arose from the same incident or formed part of the same transaction.
- Whether the FIRs should be clubbed merely because the alleged fraudsters followed a similar modus operandi.
- Whether the transfer of part of the defrauded money into one bank account connected with the petitioner was sufficient to treat all the offences as one composite transaction.
- Whether the petitioner’s medical condition and difficulty in facing proceedings in different States justified consolidation of the FIRs.
- Whether directing a single composite investigation would facilitate justice or interfere with independent investigations involving different victims, transactions and jurisdictions.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner contended that he had no involvement in the cyber fraud alleged by the complainants.
He argued that he had been working abroad on a merchant ship and had no knowledge of the transactions being carried out through the bank account of his proprietary concern.
The petitioner maintained that the account had been operated and misused by Ganesh Khaire and Krishnakant Sharma.
He relied upon the cybercrime complaint allegedly filed by him on 9 May 2024 to show that he had himself reported the misuse of his account.
The petitioner submitted that the four FIRs were based on substantially similar allegations. In each case, the complainants were allegedly contacted by fraudsters impersonating police officials and were induced to transfer money under the pretext of a money-laundering investigation.
According to him, the similarity in the manner of committing the offences indicated that the FIRs formed part of one larger transaction or conspiracy.
He argued that permitting separate investigations in Maharashtra, Karnataka and Odisha would result in:
- Multiplicity of criminal proceedings;
- Repeated investigation into substantially similar allegations;
- Possibility of conflicting findings by different investigating agencies;
- Exposure to proceedings before different courts;
- Unnecessary harassment and prejudice;
- Duplication of evidence and investigative work.
The petitioner therefore requested the Court to quash all the FIRs.
In the alternative, he sought consolidation of the FIRs and a direction that one investigating agency conduct a composite investigation.
The petitioner also relied upon his serious cardiac ailments and diabetic condition. He argued that his medical condition would make it difficult for him to participate in criminal proceedings in different States.
Respondents’ Arguments
The respondent States opposed both the prayer for quashing and the prayer for consolidation.
They argued that every FIR had been lodged by a different complainant in relation to a separate incident of cyber fraud.
Each complainant had allegedly been contacted independently, induced separately and caused to transfer money on a different occasion.
The respondents maintained that the victims, amounts, dates, banking transactions and consequences were different in every case.
According to the States, similarity in the method adopted by the fraudsters did not mean that all the offences constituted one transaction.
The respondents contended that cyber criminals may use the same method or digital infrastructure to cheat several individuals. However, every independent act of deception causing loss to a separate victim constituted a distinct offence capable of being investigated separately.
They further argued that the respective State investigating agencies were legally competent to investigate offences committed within their territorial jurisdictions.
The respondents submitted that the investigations were at an initial stage and required:
- Forensic examination of electronic devices;
- Verification of digital identities;
- Analysis of banking transactions;
- Identification of account holders and beneficiaries;
- Tracing of the complete money trail;
- Examination of multiple bank accounts;
- Identification of persons operating across different jurisdictions.
They argued that clubbing the investigations prematurely could obstruct or delay the process of identifying the entire network.
The respondent States also contended that consolidation would prejudice the victims. If all proceedings were transferred to one State, complainants from other States might be compelled to travel long distances and face practical difficulty in pursuing their complaints.
Analysis of the Law
Article 32 and Quashing of FIRs
The Supreme Court first examined whether it could quash an FIR while exercising jurisdiction under Article 32.
The Court held that its powers under Article 32 were sufficiently wide to quash criminal proceedings in an appropriate case. Article 32 itself guarantees the right to approach the Supreme Court for enforcement of fundamental rights.
The existence of another legal remedy does not create an absolute bar against the exercise of Article 32 jurisdiction.
However, the Court clarified that Article 32 is an extraordinary constitutional remedy. It is normally exercised only where:
- A fundamental right has been violated;
- There is a glaring deprivation of liberty;
- Exceptional or compelling circumstances exist;
- Immediate intervention is necessary to prevent abuse of the legal process;
- Approaching the High Court would be ineffective or futile.
As a matter of judicial discipline and orderly procedure, a person seeking quashing of an FIR is ordinarily expected to first approach the jurisdictional High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution or Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The Supreme Court distinguished between the maintainability of a petition and the Court’s decision to entertain it.
A petition may technically be maintainable under Article 32, but the Supreme Court may still decline to entertain it where an equally effective remedy exists before the High Court and no exceptional circumstance is demonstrated.
In the present case, the petitioner merely asserted that he was abroad, lacked knowledge of the transactions and that third parties had operated his bank account.
The Court held that these were factual defences requiring investigation and examination of evidence. They did not establish infringement of a fundamental right warranting direct exercise of jurisdiction under Article 32.
The Court therefore declined to consider the prayer for quashing and left the petitioner free to approach the appropriate High Court or competent forum.
Law Governing Multiple FIRs
The Court then examined the alternative prayer for clubbing and consolidation.
It reiterated that registration of more than one FIR is prohibited only where the subsequent FIR relates to:
- The same incident;
- The same occurrence;
- The same cognizable offence;
- Connected offences committed in the course of the same transaction.
Once an FIR is registered concerning a particular transaction, subsequent information relating to the same transaction ordinarily becomes part of the original investigation. It should not result in repeated FIRs and repeated investigations for the same occurrence.
However, this prohibition does not apply where the subsequent FIR concerns:
- A distinct incident;
- A separate transaction;
- A different victim;
- A counter-complaint or rival version;
- A larger conspiracy revealed later;
- New facts or offences beyond the scope of the first FIR;
- Independent acts of cheating committed on different occasions.
Therefore, the mere similarity of offences or modus operandi does not automatically make separate incidents part of one transaction.
Test of Sameness
The Court applied the “test of sameness” to determine whether the four FIRs formed part of one transaction.
The relevant factors include:
- Unity of purpose and design;
- Proximity of time;
- Proximity of place;
- Continuity of action;
- Interconnection between acts;
- Identity of victims;
- Commonality of transactions;
- Whether the later incident is merely a continuation of the earlier one;
- Whether each act can stand independently as a separate offence.
The Court clarified that these factors need not always exist cumulatively. The determination depends upon the facts of each case.
Where a series of acts are so closely connected that they form one continuous transaction, separate FIRs may not be permissible.
On the other hand, if individual acts stand independently and result in separate harm to different victims, each act may constitute a distinct transaction even if the accused use the same method.
Similar Modus Operandi Does Not Mean Same Transaction
The Supreme Court emphasised that repeated use of the same method of committing an offence does not transform several crimes into a single transaction.
A criminal group may use the same script, false identity, technological system or bank account to cheat different people.
Nevertheless, each victim may have been:
- Contacted separately;
- Deceived separately;
- Induced separately;
- Made to transfer a different amount;
- Subjected to a distinct financial loss;
- Exposed to different consequences.
The Court noted that a common modus operandi may indicate a broader conspiracy. However, it is not by itself sufficient to conclude that all offences form one transaction for the purpose of quashing or consolidating FIRs.
Even where a conspiracy is common, its execution through multiple independent offences against different victims may justify separate investigations and trials.
Precedent Analysis
T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala
The Supreme Court relied upon T.T. Antony for the principle that there cannot be successive FIRs concerning the same incident or transaction.
Once the first FIR is registered, all subsequent information regarding connected offences committed in the course of the same transaction should ordinarily be investigated as part of that FIR.
Repeated registration of FIRs and fresh investigation for the same occurrence may amount to abuse of investigative power.
However, T.T. Antony does not prohibit FIRs concerning separate incidents or independent transactions.
Babubhai v. State of Gujarat
In Babubhai, the Court applied the “test of sameness.”
Where two FIRs relate to the same incident or different parts of the same transaction, the subsequent FIR may be liable to be quashed.
Where the second FIR concerns a different incident, different version or independent crime, it is legally permissible.
The decision therefore requires a factual comparison of the incidents rather than a mechanical comparison of the penal provisions invoked.
Anju Chaudhary v. State of Uttar Pradesh
The Court relied upon Anju Chaudhary to hold that a second FIR is permissible where:
- The incident is separate;
- The scope of investigation is different;
- The offences arise from distinct facts;
- The subsequent crime does not fall within the scope of the first FIR.
The Court reiterated that no rigid formula can be applied in every case. The nature and connection of the transactions must be assessed individually.
State of Rajasthan v. Surendra Singh Rathore
This decision summarised circumstances in which a second FIR may be permissible, including:
- A counter-complaint presenting a rival version;
- Different scope of the two FIRs;
- Discovery of a larger conspiracy;
- Emergence of previously unknown facts;
- Separate incidents involving similar or different offences.
The decision supported the proposition that similarities between cases do not override their factual distinctness.
State (NCT of Delhi) v. Khimji Bhai Jadeja
The Court relied significantly upon this judgment for the triple tests used to determine the existence of the same transaction:
- Unity of purpose and design;
- Proximity of time and place;
- Continuity of action.
The judgment clarified that if there are separate transactions involving distinct offences and different victims, separate trials may be necessary.
The fact that the same modus operandi was adopted does not necessarily convert multiple crimes into one offence.
Arnab Ranjan Goswami v. Union of India
The Court referred to Arnab Goswami to distinguish maintainability from entertainability under Article 32.
Although the Supreme Court possesses the jurisdiction to quash an FIR under Article 32, the petitioner should ordinarily approach the High Court under Section 482 CrPC unless exceptional circumstances exist.
Vinod Dua v. Union of India
In Vinod Dua, the Supreme Court had directly quashed an FIR under Article 32 because the allegations impinged upon the petitioner’s fundamental right to freedom of speech.
The present case was distinguished because the petitioner failed to establish a similar direct violation of a fundamental right.
Rajendra Bihari Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh
This decision reaffirmed that Article 32 may be invoked to quash criminal proceedings where the allegations disclose a palpable violation of fundamental rights requiring urgent intervention.
However, absent such circumstances, the ordinary remedy before the High Court should be pursued.
Court’s Reasoning
The Supreme Court found that each FIR had been lodged by a different complainant.
Each complainant was allegedly deceived on a separate occasion and induced to transfer money through a distinct transaction.
There was no demonstrated live link or continuity between the separate acts of inducement.
The victims were different.
The amounts transferred were different.
The dates and banking transactions were different.
The losses and consequences suffered by the complainants were also distinct.
Although part of the money was allegedly transferred into the account of the petitioner’s proprietary concern, that circumstance alone did not establish that all incidents formed part of one transaction.
The Court held that a common destination account may be relevant evidence during investigation. However, it does not automatically establish unity of transaction, particularly where the money originated from separate victims who were independently deceived.
The Court further observed that the alleged modus operandi appeared similar. In every case, fraudsters allegedly impersonated police officials and referred to money-laundering allegations.
Nevertheless, similarity of method did not satisfy the test of sameness.
Each instance of cheating could exist independently and disclose a complete offence against a separate victim.
The Court also considered the petitioner’s medical condition but held that personal inconvenience or difficulty in facing proceedings in different States could not justify clubbing legally distinct FIRs.
Conversely, consolidation could cause greater hardship to the complainants, who might be forced to travel to another State to pursue their cases.
The Court noted that cyber-fraud investigations are technically complex. Such offences may involve:
- Multiple bank accounts;
- Fictitious identities;
- Digital communication networks;
- Electronic devices;
- Layering of funds;
- Cross-border or inter-State transactions;
- Several intermediaries and beneficiaries.
At the initial stage, investigating agencies were still tracing the complete flow of funds and identifying all persons involved.
A direction for one composite investigation at that stage could interfere with the ability of each State agency to examine the particular transaction and evidence within its jurisdiction.
The Court also observed that cyber fraud is increasing and frequently targets vulnerable victims, including persons from rural areas who may be unaware of the methods used by cyber criminals.
Accordingly, the Court held that the gravity and complexity of such offences required effective, independent and evidence-based investigation.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition.
It refused to quash the FIRs under Article 32 because the petitioner failed to demonstrate any exceptional circumstance or direct violation of a fundamental right warranting intervention by the Supreme Court.
The Court also refused to club or consolidate the FIRs.
It held that the four FIRs concerned different complainants, separate acts of inducement, different monetary transactions and distinct losses.
The mere similarity in the modus operandi and the alleged transfer of a portion of the money into one common bank account were insufficient to treat all the incidents as one transaction.
The Court clarified that similar offences committed against different victims on different occasions may constitute distinct transactions requiring separate investigations.
The petitioner was granted liberty to approach the appropriate High Court or other competent forum for relief available under law.
All contentions of the parties were left open for consideration on their own merits by the competent court.
Case Details
Case: Rutvij Bhagat Singh Wakhare v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Case Number: Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 127 of 2026
Judge: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih
Date: 24 July 2026
Result: Writ Petition dismissed; prayers for quashing and clubbing of FIRs rejected; liberty reserved to seek appropriate relief before the competent forum.
