Case: Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 11 : 2026 INSC 25

Introduction

If one criminal conspiracy cheats hundreds of investors, should there be one FIR or hundreds of them?

It sounds like a simple question. But it creates serious practical and legal problems in courts every day. The Supreme Court settled the answer in State (NCT of Delhi) v. Khimji Bhai Jadeja.

The Court held that where a single criminal conspiracy causes multiple acts of cheating, one FIR is the correct approach. It also laid down a clear "triple test" to determine whether different acts form part of the same transaction.

Background: What Happened in This Case

The case involved a large-scale cheating scheme where multiple investors were allegedly defrauded as part of a single criminal conspiracy. Different victims had individually filed complaints with the police.

The question before the Supreme Court was whether each victim's complaint required a separate FIR, or whether treating subsequent complaints as statements under Section 180 BNSS, in continuation of a single FIR, was legally correct.

The Supreme Court sided with the single-FIR approach.

The Triple Test: What the Supreme Court Held

The Supreme Court laid down three tests to determine whether multiple acts form part of the same transaction:

Test 1: Unity of Purpose and Design

All the acts must share a common intention, goal, or plan. In a criminal conspiracy case involving multiple victims, if the entire scheme was designed by the same accused persons to defraud as many investors as possible under a common plan, this test is satisfied.

Test 2: Proximity of Time and Place

The acts must be closely connected in time and location. They cannot be entirely unrelated incidents that simply happen to involve the same accused. There must be a temporal and spatial thread that ties them together.

Test 3: Continuity of Action

The acts must flow from each other as part of one continuing course of conduct. They should not be isolated, independent events. Where the same accused continued operating the same fraudulent scheme across different victims, the continuity of action test is met.

If all three tests are satisfied, the acts constitute the same transaction. The consequence follows logically.

What Happens When the Triple Test Is Satisfied?

Once a Magistrate finds that the acts form the same transaction, two things follow:

First, registering one FIR and treating all subsequent victim complaints as statements under Section 180 BNSS is the correct approach. It is not a procedural shortcut. It is actually the legally mandated course of action.

Second, consolidated charges can be framed under Section 243 BNSS and the accused can be tried jointly under Sections 246 BNSS.

The Court also protected the rights of individual complainants in this arrangement. Those treated as witnesses rather than FIR complainants are entitled to file protest petitions if a closure report is filed, or if the Magistrate intends to discharge the accused. The Magistrate must consider such petitions on their merits.

Why Separate FIRs Are Not Required

The Court gave a clear policy reason for this approach. Requiring a separate FIR for every victim in a mass-cheating case would lead to an unnecessary multiplicity of proceedings. This would not serve the interest of justice, the larger public interest, or the interest of the State.

Multiple parallel FIRs and multiple parallel trials for the same transaction would burden courts, create contradictory findings, and delay justice for all victims.

The single-FIR approach, anchored in the triple test, avoids all of this.

why This Judgment Matters

It Gives Courts a Ready-Made Test

Before this judgment, courts had to piece together the "same transaction" principle from scattered decisions. The triple test gives trial courts, magistrates, and investigating agencies a clear, direct checklist to apply.

It Prevents Harassment Through Multiplicity

Without this principle, a dishonest complainant or a poorly advised police station could register dozens of FIRs for the same conspiracy, each triggering fresh arrest and bail cycles for the same accused. The judgment puts a principled stop to this.

It Protects the Rights of All Victims

The Court's direction that complainants treated as witnesses retain the right to file protest petitions ensures that folding individual complaints into a single FIR does not silently bury their grievances..

Key Takeaways From the Judgment

· Where a criminal conspiracy leads to multiple cheating acts against different individuals, one FIR is the correct approach.

· Subsequent complaints should be recorded as statements under Section 161 CrPC.

· The triple test for "same transaction" is: (1) unity of purpose and design; (2) proximity of time and place; and (3) continuity of action.

· If the triple test is met, consolidated charges can be framed under Section 243 BNSS, and accused can be tried jointly under Section 246 BNSS.

· Individual complainants treated as witnesses retain the right to file protest petitions.

· Mandatory multiplicity of FIRs in such cases is not in the public interest.

Conclusion

State (NCT of Delhi) v. Khimji Bhai Jadeja is a practical, exam-relevant judgment that simplifies one of the most recurring problems in criminal trial procedure. The triple test is easy to remember and directly applicable.

FAQs

Q1. What is the triple test for the same transaction under the Supreme Court's 2026 judgment? 

The Supreme Court held that three tests determine whether multiple acts form part of the same transaction: first, unity of purpose and design; second, proximity of time and place; and third, continuity of action. All three must be satisfied for acts to be treated as one transaction.

Q2. What happens if multiple victims file separate complaints in a conspiracy case?

 If the acts forming the basis of all complaints satisfy the triple test, only one FIR needs to be registered. All subsequent complaints should be recorded as statements under Section 180 BNSS. Consolidated charges can then be framed under Section 246 BNSS.

Q3. Do individual complainants lose their rights if their complaint is treated as a Section 180 statement?

 No. The Supreme Court was clear that complainants treated as witnesses are entitled to file protest petitions if a closure report is filed or if the Magistrate intends to discharge the accused. The Magistrate must consider such petitions on their merits.