The State (NCT) of Delhi v. Khimji Bhai Jadeja

have been ascertained at that stage as to whether the alleged offences formed part and parcel of the same transaction – Even otherwise, consolidation of FIRs is permissible in law but that would have also depended upon the conclusions to be arrived at after the investigation – However, as on date, as many as six supplementary chargesheets have been filed during the pendency of this case, in addition to the main chargesheet that was filed in 2014 – End result of the investigation undertaken is that an offence u/s.120B IPC has been alleged – Thus, as a conspiracy is alleged, leading to multiple acts of cheating against different individuals, the course adopted by the Police in registering one FIR and treating the complaints received from 1851 other complainants as statements u/s.161 CrPC, was the correct course of action to have been adopted at that stage – Inference to be drawn from the chargesheets, left to the Magistrate concerned to consider, so as to ascertain whether the various acts of cheating attributed to the accused persons constitute part of the ‘same transaction’, thereby bringing them within the ambit of s.220(1) and s.223 (a) & (d) – If the offences formed part of the same transaction, the Magistrate would be entitled to charge and try them together, as enabled by the provisions, as it would be in the larger public interest to do so – Further, in such an event, the complainants, who would then be treated as witnesses in relation to the FIR which was first registered – For sentencing, the provisions of s.71 IPC along with ss.31 and 325 CrPC to be adhered to, depending upon the established facts and findings in the case – If, however, it is concluded that there are several transactions and distinct offences in relation to different victims, there have to be separate trials for each offence, subject to s.219 CrPC/ s.242 BNSS, which allows the trial court to try three/five offences of the same kind committed within a year – Thus, the judgment passed by the High Court set aside to that extent. [Paras 19-23] Case Law Cited Amish Devgan v. Union of India and Others (2021) 1 SCC 1 - relied on.