Multiple FIRs - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court Protects Religious Freedom: Quashes Multiple UP Conversion FIRs

2Jan

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Protects Religious Freedom: Quashes Multiple UP Conversion FIRs

This Supreme Court judgment quashed multiple FIRs under the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, holding that the unamended Section 4 restricted lodging of complaints only to aggrieved persons or their relatives. The Court found the subsequent FIRs were impermissible as they pertained to the same incident, violated the principle against multiplicity of proceedings, and were an abuse of process. Facts Of The Case: The case involves a batch of petitions and appeals concerning six FIRs registered under the Indian Penal Code and the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021. The primary FIR (No. 224/2022) was lodged on 15.04.2022 at the instance of Himanshu Dixit, a Vice President of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, alleging mass reli...

Supreme Court Limits Clubbing of Multi-State FIRs in Financial Fraud Case

In this judgement, the Supreme Court rejected the petitioners' plea to club multiple FIRs registered across different states concerning an alleged financial scam. The Court clarified that while consolidation may be permissible for a single incident like a hate speech, it is impractical in multi-victim financial frauds where distinct transactions and witnesses are involved. It allowed limited clubbing of FIRs only within the states of Telangana and Maharashtra, directing the petitioners to seek regular bail from respective jurisdictional courts. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a series of FIRs registered against a firm, its partners, and management officials, including petitioners like Odela Satyam, Pawan Odela, and Kavya Nalluri, for allegedly defrauding investors. Th...

Supreme Court Cancels Bail in Cheating Case, Slams Accused for “Misleading Courts”

The Supreme Court set aside the bail orders, emphasizing that the grant of bail must consider the totality of circumstances, including the accused's conduct and antecedents. The Court held that lower courts erred by ignoring relevant factors and precedents, and by granting bail mechanically without proper application of mind to the material on record. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, M/s Netsity Systems Pvt. Ltd., filed a criminal complaint alleging that the accused respondents, a husband and wife, had cheated them of ₹1.9 crores by promising to transfer a piece of land that was already mortgaged and sold to a third party. An FIR was subsequently registered. The accused sought anticipatory bail, and the High Court granted them interim protection for nearly four years, during which media...