Same Modus Operandi or Common Bank Account Does Not Make Separate Cyber Frauds the ‘Same Transaction’: Supreme Court Refuses to Club Multiple FIRs
Case Name: Rutvij Bhagat Singh Wakhare v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Date of Judgment: 24 July 2026
Citation: 2026 INSC 740
Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih
Held: The Supreme Court held that although a petition under Article 32 seeking quashing of an FIR is maintainable, the Court would ordinarily require the aggrieved person to first approach the High Court under Article 226 and/or Section 482 CrPC unless infringement of a fundamental right or exceptional circumstances warrant direct intervention. On multiple FIRs, the Court held that the decisive consideration is the “test of sameness”: FIRs relating to the same incident or transaction cannot ordinarily coexist, but separate FIRs are permissible where they concern distinct incidents, transactions or offences. The mere similarity of modus operandi or the fact that proceeds from different frauds were credited to a common bank account does not establish a single transaction. Where different victims were defrauded on different occasions through independent transactions with no live inter se connection, the FIRs cannot be clubbed into one composite investigation.
Summary: Four FIRs were registered in Karnataka, Maharashtra and Odisha in relation to cyber frauds in which victims were allegedly contacted by persons impersonating police officials, falsely told that money-laundering activities had occurred in their names, and induced to transfer substantial sums for purported verification or investigation. Part of the money was allegedly credited to a bank account maintained in the name of the petitioner’s proprietary concern, though the petitioner himself was not named as an accused in the FIRs. He approached the Supreme Court under Article 32 seeking quashing of all FIRs or, alternatively, their consolidation into a single investigation.
On the prayer for quashing, the Court clarified the distinction between maintainability and entertainability of an Article 32 petition. The Supreme Court undoubtedly possesses jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings where necessary to protect fundamental rights, and availability of an alternative remedy is not an absolute jurisdictional bar. However, as a matter of judicial discipline and orderly procedure, the High Court should ordinarily be approached first. Since the petitioner showed neither infringement of a fundamental right nor exceptional circumstances justifying bypass of the High Courts, the Supreme Court declined to examine the FIRs for quashing on merits.
On consolidation, the Court applied the “test of sameness” and reiterated that multiple FIRs are impermissible only when they relate to the same incident or constitute parts of the same transaction. Whether acts form the same transaction may be assessed through factors such as unity of purpose and design, proximity of time and place, and continuity of action. Crucially, identical or similar modus operandi does not by itself convert distinct offences against different victims into one transaction.
The FIRs here involved different complainants, different occasions, separate transfers, different amounts and distinct consequences, with no demonstrated live link between the transactions. The fact that some proceeds ultimately reached the same bank account was insufficient. The Court further observed that the investigations were at a nascent stage and involved electronic evidence, multiple accounts, fictitious identities and cross-jurisdictional money trails; directing a composite investigation at that stage could obstruct an effective cyber-crime probe.
Decision: The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition, refusing both to quash the FIRs directly under Article 32 and to club the FIRs registered in Maharashtra, Karnataka and Odisha into a single investigation. The petitioner was expressly granted liberty to approach the appropriate forum for relief available in law.