- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27868 CRL.P No. 10696 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 10910 of 2025 CRL.P No. 10915 of 2025 AND 1 OTHER IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10696 OF 2025 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10910 OF 2025 CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10915 OF 2025 CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10967 OF 2025 IN CRL.P No. 10696/2025 BETWEEN: SRI SANJEEV KUMAR S/O LATE RAJU, AGED 45 YEARS, R/AT NO.40, LAXMI GARDEN, THINDAL, ERODE - 638 001 TAMILNADU STATE. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAMESHA C.N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ULLALL POLICE STATION, MANGALORE, REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING, AT BENGALURU CITY - 560 001. Digitally signed by SANJEEVINI J KARISHETTY Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27868 CRL.P No. 10696 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 10910 of 2025 CRL.P No. 10915 of 2025 AND 1 OTHER 2. P.S. ESHWARAMURTHY S/O P.R. SUBRAMANIYAM, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT T4/4 VALLUR, CAMP, NORTH CHENNAI, CHENNAI, TAMILNADU - 600 120. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.N. JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP FOR R1) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 11.04.2025 PASSED ON THE APPLICATION FILED U/S 220 CR.P.C CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION AS PRAYED FOR IN COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS III COURT MANGALURU. IN CRL.P NO. 10910/2025 BETWEEN: SRI SANJEEV KUMAR S/O LATE RAJU, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT NO 40, LAXMI GARDEN THINDAL, ERODE - 638 001 TAMILNADU STATE ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAMESHA C.N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ULLAL POLICE STATION, MANGALORE, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27868 CRL.P No. 10696 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 10910 of 2025 CRL.P No. 10915 of 2025 AND 1 OTHER REP BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING, AT BENGALURU CITY - 560 001 2. M.P. MANI S/O. PONNUSWAMY AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT NO.20/15A, UPPU THOTTAM AVINASHI ROAD, COIMBATORE DISTRICT COIMBATORE CITY TAMILNADU - 641 010 ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.N. JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP FOR R1) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C. (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 11.04.2025 IN C.C.NO.3983/2016 PASSED ON THE APPLICATION FILED U/S. 220 CR.P.C PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS (III COURT) MANGALURU, CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION AS PRAYED FOR IN CC.NO.3983/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE JMFC (III COURT), MANGALORE. IN CRL.P NO. 10915/2025 BETWEEN: SRI SANJEEV KUMAR S/O LATE N.RAJU, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT NO.40, LAXMI GARDEN THINDAL, ERODE - 638 001 TAMILNADU STATE ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAMESHA C.N., ADVOCATE) - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27868 CRL.P No. 10696 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 10910 of 2025 CRL.P No. 10915 of 2025 AND 1 OTHER AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA ULLAL POLICE STATION, MANGALORE, REP BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING, AT BENGALURU CITY - 560 001 2. G.PALANI, S/O C. GOVINDARAJU, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT H NO.1/17, KULAKKARI STREET, KODAKKAL, VALAJA, VELLORE, TAMILNADU - 631 102 ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.N. JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP FOR R1) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION AS PRAYER IN CC.NO.4054/2016, ON THE FILE OF THE JMFC-III, MANGALORE AND QUASH THE ORDER DTD 11.04.2025 PASSED ON THE APPLICATION FILED U/S 220 CR.P.C. IN CRL.P NO. 10967/2025 BETWEEN: 1. SRI SANJEEV KUMAR S/O LATE RAJU, AGED 45 YEARS, R/AT NO. 40, LAXMI GARDEN, THINDAL, ERODE - 638 001, TAMILNADU STATE. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAMESHA C.N., ADVOCATE) - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27868 CRL.P No. 10696 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 10910 of 2025 CRL.P No. 10915 of 2025 AND 1 OTHER AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ULLALL POLICE STATION MANGALORE, REP BY SPP HIGH COURT BUILDING, AT BENGALURU CITY-01 2. GOKUL KUMAR S/O LATE SHANMUGA SUNDARAM, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/AT 2/363, SHIRUVANI MAIN ROAD, KALAMPALYAM, PER-ULVALI, COIMBATORE, TAMILNADU - 641 010 ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.N. JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP FOR R1) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD 11.04.2025 PASSED ON THE APPLICATION FILED U/S 220 OF CR.P.C CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION AS PRAYED IN CC.NO.4075/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE JMFC III COURT, MANGALORE. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27868 CRL.P No. 10696 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 10910 of 2025 CRL.P No. 10915 of 2025 AND 1 OTHER CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner, common in all these cases, is before this Court calling in question the orders of the concerned Court dated 11-04-2025 rejecting the application of the petitioner seeking joint trial under Section 220 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('the Cr.P.C.' for short). 2. Heard Sri. Ramesha C.N., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. B.N. Jagadeesha, learned Additional Special Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 and have perused the material available on record. 3. The issue in the subject lis lies in a narrow compass. The complainants differ; while the accused as well as the Investigating Officer are the same and the witnesses are common in all the cases before the concerned Court. In that light, the petitioner, who is an accused in all the cases, files applications before the concerned Court seeking clubbing of all these cases under Section 220 of the Cr.P.C. invoking the power of the learned Magistrate and trying them together. The - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27868 CRL.P No. 10696 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 10910 of 2025 CRL.P No. 10915 of 2025 AND 1 OTHER concerned Court rejects the applications filed by the petitioner. One such order rejecting the application of the petitioner reads as follows: "ORDER ON APPLICATION U/S 220 OF CR.P.C. The learned counsel for accused No.1 has filed application by stating that, the 1st accused has been charged for the alleged offence U/S 406 and 420 of IPC. The present case is now facing trial. There are three other matter i.e., CC No.3983/2016, CC No. 4054/2016 and CC Ν.4055/2016. The accused are common in all the above matter. Further, the nature of the cases are also similar and prosecution has been laid by the same police and all the complaints are of the same dates. There are also common witnesses in the aforesaid matters. Under such circumstances, the petitioner herein has filed a memo to take up a joint trial and if necessary to exercise powers U/S 220 of Cr.P.C. In the application it is further stated that, each of the cases which are actually 14 in number related to the same kind of transactions wherein the allegations are that the defacto complainants had parted with the money to the accused to the purpose of getting admission in K.S. Hegde Medical College at Mangaluru, that no such seats were given and the accused had committed acts of cheating and criminal breach of trust while 9 of the FIRs have been transferred to Tamil Nadu and one to Chickballapur, 4 of the cases have been tried by this Court. Records available to the prosecution, it is clearly evident that the transaction barring a small minuscule were all the bank transactions and that such moneys were substantially transferred into the bank accounts of the 2nd accused, who had actually made representations to the petitioner and made a promise of getting admissions. From the material on record, it is evident that, such amounts have been transferred to and various individuals, including the father of 2nd accused, Mr.Chinnappa, as well as his friends and associates viz., Mahesh Yadav, Mrunal, Abhishek, Suhail Ahammed, Nagesh, Jagadish, Narayan Bagawath and M/s New Kids, who have all been beneficiaries of the amount so entrusted with the 2nd - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27868 CRL.P No. 10696 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 10910 of 2025 CRL.P No. 10915 of 2025 AND 1 OTHER accused. The bank accounts of the 2nd accused in HDFC and Syndicate bank would clearly show that, the whole thing was planned and that the money was siphoned away with the help of aforesaid individuals, or concerns as the case may be and prays to allow the application. 2. On the other hand, Ld. APP has filed objection by stating that, the case is registered against the accused for the offence punishable U/S 406 and 420 of IPC. Though the accused is same in all the cases as stated in the application, but the complaints are different and the transactions and amount involved in such transactions are also different. If the mentioned in the applications are merged, it may cause ambiguity in the mind of complainant and witnesses. Hence, prays to dismiss application. 3. Heard both sides. 4. As per Sec.220 of Cr.P.C., the main essential is, (a) in one series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction; (b) more offences than one are committed by same person; 5. Upon perusal of the charge sheet materials, Sl. No Case No. Complai nant Facts Eye Witnesses 1. 4054/2016 G Palani Transaction between accused persons and complainant by name G Palani, complainant’s wife and his daughter. 1. Smt. P Sumathi 2. Shwetha 3. Ramesh Mudaliyar 2. 4075/2016 Gokul Kumar Transaction between accused persons and complainant by name Dr. Gokul Kumar, CW-2 by name Hamsa Veni. 1. Hamsa Veni 2. Shiva Dharini 3. 4055/2016 P.S. Transaction 1. Shanthi - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27868 CRL.P No. 10696 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 10910 of 2025 CRL.P No. 10915 of 2025 AND 1 OTHER Ishwara Murthy Between accused persons and complainant by name P.S Ishwara Murthy, CW-2 by name Shanthi. 2. Nagamalya 4. 3983/2016 M.P Mani Transaction between accused persons and complainant by name M.P Mani, CW-6 by name Nithesh. 1. Vasanthi 2. Hariharan 3. Ponnu Senthilnath an 4. Varalamath i 5. Nithesh Upon perusal of the said transactions, the transaction between the accused no. 1 and 2 is with the different persons. Hence, the transactions are not coming under the purview of Sec.220 of Cr.P.C. The eye witnesses in each cases are also different. Therefore, there are no reasonable grounds to allow the application as prayed for. Accordingly, this Court proceed to pass the following: ORDER The application U/S 220 of Cr.P.C. is hereby rejected. Issue summons to CW-1." The order on the face of it is erroneous as the issue is similar, the Investigating Officer and the accused are the same and the witnesses are common in the cases, and only on the reason that the complainants are different, the concerned Court has declined to answer the application under Section 220 of the Cr.P.C. The Apex Court in the case of STATE (NCT OF DELHI) - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27868 CRL.P No. 10696 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 10910 of 2025 CRL.P No. 10915 of 2025 AND 1 OTHER v. KHIMJI BHAI JADEJA1, while considering the scope of Section 220 of the Cr.P.C., has held as follows: “…. …. …. 9. The issue, therefore, boils down to whether or not the offences allegedly committed against the 1,852 complainants were part of the ‘same transaction’. We may first note the case law that has developed over time on the issue of consolidation of FIRs. In S. Swamirathnam v. State of Madras5, a 3-Judge Bench of this Court rejected the contention of the accused that there was misjoinder of charges as several conspiracies, distinct from each other, had been lumped together and tried at one trial. The Bench observed that the charges, as framed, disclosed one single conspiracy spread over several years and the only object of the conspiracy was to cheat members of the public. Per the Bench, the mere fact that others joined in the conspiracy in the course of those years or the fact that several incidents of cheating took place pursuant to the conspiracy did not change the conspiracy or split it up into several conspiracies. It was held that the instances of cheating were in pursuance of one conspiracy and were, therefore, parts of the same transaction. 10. In Banwarilal Jhunjhunwala v. Union of India6, this Court dealt with the question as to what is meant by ‘every distinct offence’. It was held that ‘distinct’ meant ‘not identical’ and two offences would be distinct if they are not, in any way, inter-related. It was further held that if there is some inter-relation, there would be no distinctness and it would depend upon the circumstances of the case in which the offences were committed whether there be separate charges for those offences or not. 11. In Cheemalapati Ganeswara Rao (supra), a 3- Judge Bench of this Court observed that, what is to be 1 2026 SCC OnLine SC 19 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27868 CRL.P No. 10696 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 10910 of 2025 CRL.P No. 10915 of 2025 AND 1 OTHER ascertained under Section 235(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (equivalent to Section 218(1) CrPC), was whether the offences arise out of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction. It was noted that ‘same transaction’ is not defined anywhere in the 1898 Code and it was held that whether transactions can be regarded as the same transaction would necessarily depend upon the particular facts of each case. The Bench noted that the general thought is that, where there is proximity of time or place or unity of purpose and design or continuity of action in respect of a series of acts, it may be possible to infer that they form part of the same transaction. The Bench, however, cautioned that it is not necessary that every one of these elements should co-exist for transactions to be regarded as the same transaction and elaborated that if several acts committed by a person show a unity of purpose or design, then it may be a strong circumstance to indicate that those acts form part of the same transaction. Noting that a transaction may consist of an isolated act or a series of acts, the Bench held that such series of acts must, of necessity, be connected with one another and if some of them stand out independently, they would not form part of the same transaction but would constitute a different transaction. It was concluded that the ‘same transaction’ means a transaction consisting either of a single act or of a series of connected acts. 12. In State of Jharkhand through SP, Central Bureau of Investigation v. Lalu Prasad Yadav alias Lalu Prasad7, this Court observed that even if the modus operandi is the same, it would not make it a single offence when the offences are separate. This Court held that, if a conspiracy is furthered into several distinct offences, there have to be separate trials. Illustrating the point, it was observed there may be a situation where, in furtherance of a general conspiracy, offences take place in different parts of the country, leading to several persons being killed at different times and, in such a situation, each trial would have to be held separately so that the accused are punished separately for each offence - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27868 CRL.P No. 10696 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 10910 of 2025 CRL.P No. 10915 of 2025 AND 1 OTHER committed in furtherance of the conspiracy. It was pointed out if there is only one trial for such a conspiracy, in spite of separate offences being committed, it would enable the accused to go scot- free, despite committing a number of offences, which is not the intendment of law. …. …. …. 19. We may note that Section 218(1) CrPC requires a distinct and separate charge for every distinct offence and each such separate charge should be tried separately. Sections 219 to 223 CrPC constitute exceptions to this general rule and stipulate the circumstances in which deviation therefrom can be made. Under Section 219 CrPC, three such offences committed during a year can be the subject matter of a single trial [now, five such offences, under Section 242 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)]. Under Sections 220(1) CrPC and 223(a) and (d) CrPC, consolidated charges can be framed against several accused persons in relation to several offences, if such offences are committed during the course of the same transaction. It would, therefore, turn upon the offences forming part of the ‘same transaction’. 20. As already noted hereinabove, precedential law has laid down triple tests, though not to be applied cumulatively, to decide when separate actions can be treated as part of the ‘same transaction’ - 1) unity of purpose and design; 2) proximity of time and place; and 3) continuity of action. These tests may be applied to ascertain whether a series of acts form part of the same transaction or not. It is not necessary at the present stage to consider whether consolidation of charges under Section 220(1) CrPC should be resorted to, as that would depend upon the opinion of the Magistrate on the strength of the findings recorded during the investigation. If it is opined that all the incidents partake of the same transaction, there can be one trial under Section 220(1) CrPC and Section 223(a) and (d) CrPC. If, however, it is concluded that there are several transactions and - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27868 CRL.P No. 10696 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 10910 of 2025 CRL.P No. 10915 of 2025 AND 1 OTHER distinct offences in relation to different victims, there have to be separate trials for each offence, subject to Section 219 CrPC/Section 242 BNSS, which allows the Trial Court to try three/five offences of the same kind committed within a year. Once all the incidents are taken to be part of the same transaction and amalgamated into one FIR, the punishment would follow accordingly as per law. 21. We agree with the learned amicus that the reference by the learned Additional Sessions Judge was premature, as the stage had not arisen for her to have entertained any doubt so as to raise the questions of law that she did for the decision of the High Court. The investigation was still ongoing and it could not have been ascertained at that stage as to whether the alleged offences formed part and parcel of the same transaction. Even otherwise, consolidation of FIRs is permissible in law but that would have also depended upon the conclusions to be arrived at after the investigation. However, as on date, as many as six supplementary chargesheets have been filed during the pendency of this case, in addition to the main chargesheet that was filed in the year 2014. We find that the end result of the investigation undertaken is that an offence under Section 120B IPC has been alleged, i.e., a criminal conspiracy. Therefore, as a conspiracy is alleged, leading to multiple acts of cheating against different individuals, the course adopted by the Delhi Police in registering one FIR and treating the complaints received from 1851 other complainants as statements under Section 161 CrPC, was the correct course of action to have been adopted at that stage. 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 - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27868 CRL.P No. 10696 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 10910 of 2025 CRL.P No. 10915 of 2025 AND 1 OTHER 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.” (Emphasis supplied) In the light of the afore-quoted judgment of the Apex Court, the application deserves to succeed; it does before this Court. 4. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER (i) The petition stands allowed. (ii) The orders dated 11.04.2025 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class (III Court), Mangalore in C.C.No.4055/2016, C.C.No.3983/2016, C.C.No.4054/2016 and C.C.No.4075/2016 stand quashed. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27868 CRL.P No. 10696 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 10910 of 2025 CRL.P No. 10915 of 2025 AND 1 OTHER (iii) The concerned Court is directed to club all the cases and take it up together and take it to its logical conclusion. Ordered accordingly. JY List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1 Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE