The Supreme Court today strongly questioned a Dubai-based accused seeking the consolidation of multiple FIRs registered across different States in connection with alleged chit fund and investment fraud cases.

During the hearing, the petitioner argued that multiple FIRs arising out of similar allegations should be consolidated and transferred for a single investigation, particularly as some cases were already being investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation.

The Court, however, repeatedly emphasised that the issue had to be viewed from the perspective of victims rather than the convenience of the accused. Questioning the petitioner, the court remarked:

“Thousands of people you have duped and you are sitting in Dubai. You want us to provide red carpeting to you.”

When the petitioner stated that he was willing to return and surrender if the cases were consolidated, the CJI Surya Kant responded: “You come to India, we’ll consider you a patriot. You first surrender, for the law of the land, not like this.”

The Bench also expressed concern that criminal jurisprudence had historically remained too “accused-oriented” while victims were often ignored in the process. Observing that victims now have a statutory voice after amendments to the criminal procedure law, the Court stated:

“We know the quality of prosecutors in the country. So the victim will remain crying outside the court and we are only accused oriented.”

The Court further observed that victims from different States would face significant hardship if all proceedings were transferred to one place solely for the convenience of the accused. Referring to the nature of alleged chit fund frauds, the Bench remarked:

“These are so sophisticated crimes. You give dreams, you sell dreams. People, their hard-earned money is taken.”

The petitioner argued that multiple proceedings across States were causing hardship and consolidation had been permitted in several earlier cases. However, the Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi noted that each investment transaction and each victim could constitute separate offences and that the issue of consolidation required reconsideration from a victim-centric perspective.