Legal Review and Analysis of The State NCT of Delhi vs Khimji Bhai Jadeja 2026 INSC 25

Case Synopsis

Case: The State (NCT) of Delhi vs Khimji Bhai Jadeja, (2026) INSC 25.

Synopsis : This judgment authoritatively settles that in multi-victim financial frauds driven by a single conspiracy, the police may legitimately register one FIR and club subsequent complaints. The "same transaction" doctrine under Section 220(1) CrPC permits a consolidated trial, prioritizing judicial efficiency and the coherent prosecution of the overarching conspiracy over treating each victim's case in isolation.

1. Heading of the Judgment

Case Name: The State (NCT) of Delhi vs Khimji Bhai Jadeja
Citation: 2026 INSC 25 (Criminal Appeal No. of 2026 @ SLP(Crl.) No. 9198 of 2019)
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Aradhe
Date of Judgment: January 06, 2026

2. Related Laws and Sections

The judgment interprets and applies key procedural provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) and substantive penal law concerning conspiracy:

• Sections 218 to 223 CrPC: These provisions govern the joinder of charges and trials. Specifically:
  Section 218: General rule requiring a separate charge and trial for every distinct offence.
  Section 219: Exception allowing joinder of up to three offences of the same kind committed within a year.
  Section 220(1): Exception allowing a single trial for multiple offences if they form part of the "same transaction".
  Section 223(a) & (d): Allow persons accused of the same offence or offences committed in the same transaction to be tried together.

• Sections 420 (Cheating) and 120B (Criminal Conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

• Section 395(2) CrPC: Provision for reference of a question of law to the High Court.

• Article 142 of the Constitution of India: Invoked in precedents to consolidate FIRs in the interest of justice.

3. Basic Judgment Details

A. Facts of the Case

• FIR No. 89 of 2009 was registered based on a complaint by Rajesh Kumar, alleging that Ashok Jadeja and his accomplices (including the respondent, Khimji Bhai Jadeja) ran a scheme by falsely claiming divine powers to triple investors' money.

• Investigation revealed 1,852 victims cheated of approximately ₹46.40 crores. The police clubbed all 1,851 subsequent complaints with the initial FIR, treating them as witness statements under Section 161 CrPC.

• During bail proceedings for the respondent, the learned Additional Sessions Judge framed three questions of law and referred them to the Delhi High Court under Section 395(2) CrPC.

• The Delhi High Court, answering the reference, held that (a) each deposit constitutes a separate transaction requiring a separate FIR, (b) a separate charge sheet must be filed for each FIR with amalgamation limited to three offences per trial under Section 219 CrPC, and (c) question (c) did not survive.

• The State of Delhi appealed to the Supreme Court against this judgment.

B. Issues Before the Supreme Court

1. Whether, in a case of criminal conspiracy to cheat numerous investors, each act of cheating (each deposit) constitutes a separate and distinct transaction mandating a separate FIR?

2. Whether multiple complaints arising from a single conspiracy can be legitimately clubbed into one FIR and a consolidated charge sheet?

3. What is the correct legal position regarding the consolidation of FIRs, joinder of charges, and conduct of trial in such multi-victim fraud cases?

C. Ratio Decidendi (Court's Reasoning)

• Concept of "Same Transaction": The Supreme Court elaborated on the jurisprudential tests to determine if multiple acts form part of the "same transaction" under Section 220(1) CrPC. The key indicators are: 1) Unity of purpose and design, 2) Proximity of time and place, and 3) Continuity of action. All need not co-exist; unity of purpose is a strong indicator.

• Primacy of Alleged Conspiracy: The Court emphasized that where the foundational allegation is a single criminal conspiracy (Section 120B IPC) to dupe investors through a common scheme, the subsequent acts of cheating are facets of that singular transaction. The police were correct in registering one FIR and treating subsequent complaints as statements under Section 161 CrPC for investigation.

• Prematurity of the Reference: The Court agreed with the Amicus Curiae that the reference to the High Court was premature. The question of whether offences form the same transaction is a mixed question of law and fact to be determined by the trial court at the stage of framing charges, based on the evidence collected.

• Permissibility and Policy of Consolidation: Relying on precedents like Amish Devgan vs. Union of India and T.T. Antony vs. State of Kerala, the Court affirmed that consolidation of FIRs/clubbing of complaints is legally permissible to avoid a vexatious multiplicity of proceedings, which burdens the judiciary and prosecution, and is not in public interest.

• Safeguards for Complainants: The Court clarified that complainants whose complaints are treated as statements retain the right to file protest petitions if a closure report is filed or if the Magistrate proposes to discharge the accused, ensuring their grievances are addressed.

• Distinguishing Narinderjit Singh Sahni: The Court noted that the precedent in Narinderjit Singh Sahni (which supported separate transactions) did not deeply analyze the "same transaction" doctrine in the context of a single conspiracy. Later judgments by larger benches have evolved the law towards permitting consolidation.

4. Core Principle of the Judgment

The "Same Transaction" Doctrine in Multi-Victim Conspiracies

Title: Unifying the Threads: Conspiracy as the Conduit for a Single Transaction in Mass Fraud Cases

Analysis
The Supreme Court addressed the fundamental tension between two procedural imperatives: the right of each victim to pursue a complaint and the need for procedural efficiency and coherence when a crime is perpetrated through a unified scheme against many. The core issue was whether the legal system should view such frauds as a constellation of isolated offences or as the unfolding of one integrated criminal enterprise.

The judgment pivots on a robust interpretation of the "same transaction" doctrine. The Court moved away from a narrow, atomistic view that focuses solely on individual victims and deposits. Instead, it adopted a holistic perspective that prioritizes the common design or conspiracy. When numerous acts of cheating are executed pursuant to a single conspiracy with a unified purpose (e.g., a Ponzi scheme), they lose their character as distinct, isolated transactions. They become connected acts in a serial narrative of the same crime.

This approach serves critical legal policy goals:

1. Judicial Economy: Prevents the clogging of courts with hundreds of nearly identical cases stemming from one scam.

2. Effective Prosecution: Allows the prosecution to present a coherent case of the entire conspiracy, demonstrating its scale and modus operandi, rather than proving fragments in siloed trials.

3. Fair Trial for Accused: Ensures the accused are tried for the entire scope of the alleged conspiracy in one proceeding, protecting them from sequential prosecutions for what is essentially the same course of conduct.

The Court clarified that this does not prejudice victims' rights, as safeguards like protest petitions remain. The judgment thus establishes a presumption in favor of consolidation where a single conspiracy is prima facie alleged, leaving the final determination on joinder of charges to the trial court after evidence is gathered.

5. Final Outcome and Supreme Court Directions

The Supreme Court allowed the State's appeal and set aside the answers given by the Delhi High Court on questions (a) and (b) of the reference.

• The judgment of the Delhi High Court dated 08.07.2019 was set aside to that extent.

• The Supreme Court upheld the action of the Delhi Police in registering a single FIR (No. 89 of 2009) and investigating the complaints of all 1,852 victims under its umbrella.

• The matter was remitted back to the trial court. The Magistrate is to decide, at the stage of framing charges, whether the various acts of cheating formed part of the "same transaction" based on the evidence in the charge sheet.

• If they are part of the same transaction, the Magistrate may charge and try the accused together under Sections 220(1) and 223 CrPC. If not, separate trials may be conducted subject to the limits of Section 219 CrPC.

• The Court acknowledged the valuable assistance rendered by the Amicus Curiae, Mr. R. Basant.

6.  (MCQs) Based on the Judgment

Question 1: In The State (NCT) of Delhi vs Khimji Bhai Jadeja, the Supreme Court primarily held that multiple acts of cheating against different investors can be investigated under a single FIR. What was the key legal rationale for this?
a) Each investor signed the same physical agreement document.
b) The alleged acts were committed in the same police station jurisdiction.
c) The acts were allegedly committed in pursuance of a single criminal conspiracy, forming part of the "same transaction".
d) The total amount cheated was below a specific monetary threshold.

Question 2: According to the Supreme Court's judgment, at what procedural stage should the question of whether multiple offences form part of the "same transaction" for joinder of charges be conclusively determined?
a) At the stage of registering the FIR.
b) During the investigation by the police.
c) At the stage of framing of charges by the trial court, based on the evidence collected.
d) During the final arguments after the trial.