Pavan Kumar Odela vs The State Of Telangana

2025 INSC 1174 Non-Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

Writ Petition (Criminal) No. of 2025 [@Diary No.26673 of 2025]

Odela Satyam & Anr. …Petitioners Versus The State of Telangana & Ors.

…Respondents WITH Writ Petition (Criminal) No.269 of 2025

Writ Petition (Criminal) No.313 of 2025

Writ Petition (Criminal) No.320 of 2025

Writ Petition (Criminal) No.321 of 2025

Writ Petition (Criminal) No.319 of 2025

JUDGMENT

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

1. The Writ Petition (Criminal) Dy. No.26673 of 2025 was

filed by the father of the Partner and Additional Director and

the friend of the Managing Director of a firm, in which the Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by POOJA SHARMA accused have now filed an application for substitution by Crl. Date: 2025.09.26 17:07:43 IST Reason:

M.P. No.187608 of 2025, which is allowed. Writ Petition (Crl.)

Page 1 of 11 W.P.(CRL.) D.NO.26673 OF 2025 No.269 of 2025, Writ Petition (Crl.) No.313 of 2025 and Writ

Petition (Crl.) No.320 of 2025 are filed by persons in

management of the firm, and Writ Petition (Crl.) No.319 of

2025 and Writ Petition (Crl.) No.321 of 2025 are filed by the

wife and father of the petitioner in Writ Petition (Crl.) No.320

of 2025. There is no FIR as such registered against the

petitioners in Writ Petition (Crl.) Nos. 319 of 2025 & No.321 of

2025, as we see from the records.

2. The petitioners have filed the above writ petition

seeking clubbing of FIRs filed in various States and also seeks

for clubbing of future FIRs to be filed against the firm, its

partners and management officials. The case for clubbing of

such FIRs is projected on the ground that the multiple FIRs

have been lodged on the very same cause of action and the

investigation and prosecution has to be brought under one

roof, which would be enabled by clubbing all the FIRs to one

single Police Station where the first crime was registered.

3. The State of Telangana, where the maximum number of

crimes were registered, that too by the Economic Offences

Wing, Cyberabad has filed counter affidavit resisting the

prayers. It is pointed out that the crimes were committed by

Page 2 of 11 W.P.(CRL.) D.NO.26673 OF 2025 the accused in different places of the country, though the

allegation is same, of defalcation of money received from

unsuspecting investors. The modus operandi of the crime is

the same, but the essential facts are different, and the

individual crime proper has ramifications which are unique in

each such transactions and also involves offences under the

enactments in the different States; brought in to ensure

protection of investors and depositors in financial institutions.

Insofar as the State of Telangana is concerned, the offence

alleged would also include those under Telangana Protection

of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999.

4. From the records, it is seen that there are crimes

registered in the States of Karnataka, Maharashtra, West

Bengal, Delhi, Andhra Pradesh and Rajasthan in addition to

Telangana. Multiple FIRs within a State is only in Telangana,

wherein four FIRs were registered and Maharashtra, wherein

two FIRs were registered.

5. At the outset, it has to be observed that the prayers

made in the Writ Petition for clubbing of FIRs from various

States and also regarding the future FIRs are overambitious

and outright illegal as has been noticed in Amandeep Singh

Page 3 of 11 W.P.(CRL.) D.NO.26673 OF 2025 Saran v. State of Delhi and Others1. The prayer regarding

future FIRs is one which cannot be granted by any court of

law. The further contention that a similar relief was granted in

Radhey Shyam v. State of Haryana2 by order dated

12.05.2022 should be replicated here also, has been dealt

with in Aman Deep Singh1. The power exercised under

Radhey Shyam2 was under Article 142 of the Constitution of

India that too with the consent of the States.

6. Reliance was also placed on Amish Devgan v. Union of

India and Others3 wherein the petitioner – accused was a

journalist who had been hosting and anchoring a debate

show on a TV channel. The petitioner had, in the course of the

debate, made some observations about a person revered by

a community, which was alleged to have caused hurt and

incited religious hatred towards a community. Seven FIRs

were registered in various parts of the country. While finding

that the petitioner could have approached the High Court for

appropriate relief, since detailed arguments were addressed

by both sides on maintainability of the FIRs and to avoid

1 2023 SCC Online SC 1851 2 W.P.(Crl.) No.75 of 2020 3 (2021) 1 SCC 1

Page 4 of 11 W.P.(CRL.) D.NO.26673 OF 2025 multiplicity of litigation, though this Court refused to quash

the FIRs but directed investigation to be carried out

independently of such refusal. On the second prayer

regarding the multiplicity of the FIRs, reliance was placed on

T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala and Others4, which held that

there can be no second FIR where information concerns the

same cognizable offence alleged in the first FIR of the same

occurrence or incident which gives rise to one or more

cognizable offences. However, in Upkar Singh v. Ved

Prakash and Others5, various decisions after T.T. Antony4

was noticed to hold that T.T. Antony4 does not preclude the

filing of a second complaint in regard to the same incident as

a counter complaint nor is the cause of action prohibited by

Cr.P.C.

7. This Court in Amish Devgan3 followed the ratio in T.T.

Antony4 to the effect that the subsequent FIR would be treated

as statements under Section 162 of the Cr.P.C. It was held that

this would be fair and just to the complainants, at whose

behest the FIRs were registered, since they would be in a

4 (2001) 6 SCC 181 5 (2004) 13 SCC 292

Page 5 of 11 W.P.(CRL.) D.NO.26673 OF 2025 position to file a protest petition in case a closure report is

filed by the Police. It was in the above circumstances that the

cases at serial Nos. 2 to 7, in the tabulation of cases extracted

in the decision was transferred to the Police Station wherein

the first FIR was registered.

8. It has to be noticed that therein, the offence was one, of

an alleged objectionable statement leading to hurting of

religious sentiments telecast in a television show; which

stands distinct from the instant case wherein FIRs were

registered on the complaints of the investors of depositors

who were alleged to have been duped by the firm diverting

the funds leading to loss of their life’s savings. We cannot

forget that after investigation if a charge sheet is filed, the trial

will have to be proceeded with, producing witnesses, being

the investors of depositors, from the various locations. In

which event the clubbing of FIRs from all the States would not

be practical.

9. In this context we also refer to the decision in Amanat

Ali v. State of Karnataka and Others6, wherein also prayer

6 (2023) 14 SCC 801

Page 6 of 11 W.P.(CRL.) D.NO.26673 OF 2025 was under Article 32 and 142 for consolidation of FIRs

alleging fraud of scam carried out by a certain company. This

court followed the principles laid down in Amish Devgan3

and invoked the power conferred under Article 142 of the

Constitution of India but only permitted consolidation of the

FIRs registered in the State of Madhya Pradesh. The prayer

for transfer of cases pending in the States of Karnataka and

Jharkhand were specifically rejected.

10. We have to also notice Section 242 of Bharathiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023 which enables offences of

same kind within a year to be charged together. Section 242

provides that when a person is accused of more offences than

one, of the same kind, committed within the space of twelve

months, from the first to the last of such offences, whether in

respect of the same person or not, he may be charged with,

and tried at one trial for any number of them not exceeding

five.

11. In the present case the FIRs filed are the following:

Sl. FIR No. Offences Police Station Dated No. of Current Accused No. No. under Accused & Name Section TELANGANA

1. 10 of 2025 S.318 (4) EOW, 11.02.20 20 Yogendra Singh (A2) BNS Cyberabad 25 Kavya Nalluri (A5)

Page 7 of 11 W.P.(CRL.) D.NO.26673 OF 2025 [Annex P7, S.316 (2) Pawan Odela (A7) Pg.169-201] BNS Aryan Singh Chhabra S.5 TSPDFEA (A3) Note – Sandeep Kumar while not named in FIR, WP (Crl.) 320 of 2025 pleads that Sandeep is Accused 21 in FIR 10 of 2025

2. 11 of 2025 S.318 (4) EOW 11.02.20 20 Yogendra Singh (A2) [@ Annex P8, BNS Cyberabad 25 Kavya Nalluri (A5) pg. 202-235] S.316 (2) Pawan Odela (A7) BNS Aryan Singh Chhabra S.5, (A3) TSPDFEA

3. 12 of 2025 S.318 (4) EOW 11.02.20 1 No. Against Falcon [@ Annex P9, BNS Cyberabad 2 Invoice Discounting pg.236-242] S.316 (2) Firm & Staff BNS S.5, TSPDFEA

4. 215 of 2025 S.318 (4), Madhapur, 11.02.20 3 Pawan Odela (A2) [Annex P10, S.316 (2), Cyberabad 2 Yogendra Singh (A3) pg. 243-250] S.61 (2) BNS S.5, TSPDFEA KARNATAKA

1. 7 of 2025 S.66 (C), 66 Cybercrime 20.02.20 14 Yogendra Singh (A2) [Annex P12, (D) IT Act. PS, Bengaluru 25 Pawan Odela (A3) pg. 292-300] 2000 City Kavya Nalluri (A6) S.21, Aryan Singh Chhabra Banning of (A4) Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019 S.318 (4), 319 (2) BNS MAHARASHTRA

1. 124 of 2025 S.66(D) IT Ambazari, 07.03.20 2 Falcon & ICICI [Annex P14, Act 2000 Nagpur City 25 pg. 308-321] S.318 (4), 316 (2) BNS

2. 210 of 2025 S.3(5), 318 Wagle Estate, 29.03.20 8 Pawan Odela (A3) [Annex P19, (4), 316 (2) Thane City 25 Kavya Nalluri (A4) pg. 364-381] BNS Yogendra Singh (A5) WEST BENGAL

1. 71 of 2025 S.316 (2), Laketown, 08.03.20 3 Pawan Odela (A2) [Annex P15, 318 (4) BNS Bidhannagar 25 Yogendra Singh (A3) pg. 322-331] DELHI

1. 36 of 2025 S.316 (2), EOW New 20.03.20 7 Pawan Odela (A3) [Annex P16, 318 (2), Delhi 25 Kavya Nalluri (A4) pg.332-343] 61(2) BNS Yogendra Singh (A5) S.3 Delhi Protection of Interest of Depositors Act, 2001 ANDHRA PRADESH

1. 120 of 2025 S.316 (2), Amalapuram 29.03.20 1 -

318 (4), BNS Town 25

Page 8 of 11 W.P.(CRL.) D.NO.26673 OF 2025 [Annex P17, S.66 D, IT pg. 344-348] Act RAJASTHAN 1. 81 of 2025 S.316 (2), Sardarpura, 11.04.20 6 Yogendra Singh (A1) [Annex P18, 318 (4), 61 Jodhpur 25 Kavya Nalluri (A4) pg. 349-363] (2) BNS Pawan Odela (A6) Aryan Singh (A2)

12. As we noticed, in Telangana there were 4 crimes

registered, three by the Economic Offences Wing,

Cyberabad and one in Madhapur, Cyberabad. Hence the FIR

registered in Madhapur, Cyberabad will stand transferred to

Economic Offences Wing, Cyberabad. In the State of

Maharashtra, there are two FIRs registered, One in Ambazari,

Nagpur city and the other in Wagle Estate, Thane City. The

FIR 210 of 2025 registered in Wagle Estate, Thane City will be

transferred to Ambazari, Nagpur City. The clubbing of the

single FIRs filed in the State of Karnataka, West Bengal, Delhi,

Andhra Pradesh and Rajasthan stand rejected.

13. It is made clear that if and when the trial commences,

witnesses from the prosecution, if travelling from the police

station limits in which the FIR was originally registered to the

Court having jurisdiction over the Police Station to which it

has been transferred by this order, then necessarily the Court

trying the case shall award costs to defray the expenses of

Page 9 of 11 W.P.(CRL.) D.NO.26673 OF 2025 travel and residence, if the residence is necessitated for the

purpose of examination of the witnesses, which shall be paid

by the accused herein through the Court.

14. We notice that some of the petitioners are under arrest

and are languishing in jail. Considering the fact that they have

spent months together in jail, they shall be released on bail

on such conditions imposed by the Jurisdictional Magistrate,

including that of cooperation in the investigation. Others

against whom warrants are pending shall not be arrested. The

above order shall be continued for a period of six months.

Within the six-month period the petitioners shall appear

before the Jurisdictional Courts in which the various FIRs are

registered praying for regular bail, which shall be

considered on the same day and granted on conditions found

appropriate including the condition of cooperating with the

investigation.

15. The production warrants issued by the Jurisdictional

Courts against the petitioners shall not be acted upon for the

six months provided herein, within which time the petitioners

shall appear before the respective Courts and seek bail. It is

made clear that the petitioners would be obliged to

Page 10 of 11 W.P.(CRL.) D.NO.26673 OF 2025 cooperate with the investigation and any failure of that or the

other conditions imposed would enable the Investigating

Agency to approach the Jurisdictional Court for cancellation

of bail. This order granting protection from coercive steps to

those who are released on bail and those against whom

warrants are pending shall be only in force for the six-month

period stipulated herein, within which time the petitioners

will approach the jurisdictional courts and if not, the police

would be entitled to proceed in accordance with law.

16. The Writ Petitions are disposed of accordingly.

17. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

……….…………………….….. CJI.

(B. R. GAVAI)

……….…………………….….. CJI.

(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)

NEW DELHI;

SEPTEMBER 26, 2025.

Page 11 of 11 W.P.(CRL.) D.NO.26673 OF 2025