$~18 & 19 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010209652020 + W.P.(CRL) 1159/2020 VINAY JAIN .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Zeeshan Diwan, Mr. Harsha and Ms. Ankita Yadav, Advocates. versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Amol Sinha, ASC for State. Insp. Satish Kumar, PS EoW. SI Avinash, PS Anand Vihar. 19 # CNR No. DLHC010258032020 + W.P.(CRL) 1523/2020 VINAY JAIN .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Zeeshan Diwan, Mr. Harsha and Ms. Ankita Yadav, Advocates. versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Amol Sinha, ASC for State. Insp. Satish Kumar, PS EoW. SI Avinash, PS Anand Vihar. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 17.09.2026 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/09/2026 at 11:26:02 1. The two petitions, filed by the same petitioner, concern the clubbing of eight FIRs registered against him and the consequential trial. Six FIRs are the subject matter of one petition, four of which were registered at the Economic Offences Wing and two at PS Anand Vihar, Delhi. The remaining two FIRs, namely FIR No. 37/2017 and FIR No. 426/2017 were subsequently transferred to the Economic Offences Wing. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the FIRs arise out of the same transaction, the allegation in each being of cheating and of loans fraudulently obtained from the banks in respect of construction and development projects and that although the complainants and witnesses differ from case to case, the transaction remains the same. 3. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record. The petitioner is an accused in a number of FIRs registered in respect of construction and development projects undertaken in Delhi and Uttar Pradesh. In view of the concession noted hereinabove, the instant cases are confined to the following seven FIRs: S.No . FIR No. & Date Police Station Sections Status of Trial 1. 31/2017 dt. 23.02.2017 EOW 409/420/120B IPC Arguments on Charge NDOH: 11.01.2027 2. 115/2017 dt. 12.07.2017 EOW 406/409/420/120B IPC Arguments on Charge NDOH: 23.10.2026 3. 173/2018 dt. 30.08.2018 EOW 420/120B IPC Arguments on Charge NDOH: 23.12.2026 4. 430/2018 dt. 19.12.2018 Anand Vihar 420/406/120B IPC Arguments on Charge NDOH: 23.10.2026 5. 132/2019 EOW 406/409/420/120B Arguments on This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/09/2026 at 11:26:02 dt. 15.07.2019 IPC Charge NDOH: 11.01.2027 6. 37/2017 dt. 08.03.2017 EOW 420/409/120B IPC Arguments on Charge NDOH: 23.09.2026 7. 426/2017 dt. 28.08.2017 Anand Vihar, transferred to EOW 420/406/120B IPC Arguments on Charge NDOH: 23.12.2026 4. Accordingly, these cases shall have no bearing on FIR No. 50/2017 dated 04.02.2017, registered at PS Anand Vihar, Delhi. 5. The question stands addressed by the Supreme Court in The State (NCT of Delhi) v. Khimji Bhai Jadeja1, wherein it was held in paragraph 22 as under: “22. The inference to be drawn from the chargesheets, as filed, is left to the Magistrate concerned to consider, so as to ascertain whether the various acts of cheating attributed to the accused persons constitute part of the ‘same transaction’, thereby bringing them within the ambit of Section 220(1) CrPC and Section 223 (a) & (d) CrPC. If the offences formed part of the same transaction, the Magistrate would be entitled to charge and try them together, as enabled by the aforestated provisions, as it would be in the larger public interest to do so. Further, in such an event, as pointed out in Amish Devgan (supra), the complainants, who would then be treated as witnesses in relation to the FIR which was first registered, would be entitled to file protest petitions in the event of a closure report being filed or if the Magistrate is inclined to discharge the accused, and the Magistrate concerned is bound to consider the same on merits. Coming to the aspect of sentencing, the provisions of Section 71 IPC along with Sections 31 and 325 CrPC would have to be adhered to, depending upon the established facts and findings in the case.” 6. The subsequent FIRs relate to the same transaction. The complainant may be different and the witnesses may also differ from case to case, however, the entire transaction relates to the alleged cheating and to the 1 2026 INSC 25 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/09/2026 at 11:26:02 loans fraudulently obtained by the petitioner from the banks. The first chargesheet having been filed in FIR No. 115/2017, which is pending before the Court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, it would be appropriate that the remaining six FIRs be dealt with by the same Court. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and as agreed, it is directed that the Court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, where the first chargesheet has been submitted, shall deal with the remaining six FIRs, as noted hereinabove. 8. With the aforesaid directions, nothing further is required to be adjudicated. Accordingly, the petitions, along with the pending applications, stand disposed of. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J SEPTEMBER 17, 2026/aks/hr This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/09/2026 at 11:26:02