'Justice system must prioritise victims over accused': Supreme Court refuses to club 53 FIRs in Rs 49-crore fraud case

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday underscored that the justice system should focus on the rights of victims rather than the convenience of the accused, as it declined to consolidate multiple First Information Reports (FIRs) filed in a Rs 49-crore fraud case across several states.

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi rejected the plea to club 53 FIRs pending in seven states, observing that victims of financial crimes often remain "invisible" in the judicial process.

The court questioned the fairness of compelling victims to travel across states merely to suit the accused. 

“Is it fair to ask the victims of your crime to come from different places to one place at the convenience of the accused,” the bench asked.

The top court noted that every case of fraud, cheating, and conspiracy is distinct because the victims and the amounts defrauded differ, even if the accused are the same. 

It stressed the need for a victim-centric approach in the justice delivery system.

The bench referred to earlier Supreme Court judgments that had ordered consolidation of FIRs in large-scale fraud cases. 

However, it observed that such orders were often being misused in the name of speedy trials, resulting in judgments that favoured the accused over victims.

Senior advocate Aman Lekhi, appearing for the petitioners Upendra Nath Mishra and Kali Prasad Mishra, faced tough questioning from the court.

The bench made it clear that it was not inclined to entertain the plea, citing recent amendments in criminal law that have strengthened victims’ rights.

The multiple cases against the accused are pending in Odisha, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Goa, and Andhra Pradesh.

Highlighting the plight of small victims, the court wondered if it would be fair to ask a person in Odisha, who was duped of Rs 10,000, to travel to another state following consolidation of the FIRs.

The petitioners eventually withdrew their plea after the court refused to consider it.