The Supreme Court has turned down a plea by a merchant navy officer who wanted four separate FIRs registered against him in three different states clubbed into one case. The court said the FIRs deal with different complainants and different transactions, so they cannot be treated as a single matter.
A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih delivered the judgment on July 24, 2026, in a writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution.
Background Of The Case
The petitioner, Rutvij Bhagat Singh Wakhare, had approached the top court seeking quashing of four FIRs filed against him in Pune, Bengaluru (two FIRs) and Odisha. All four cases relate to cyber fraud, where victims were allegedly contacted by people posing as police officers and told that money laundering had taken place in their name. Scared by this, the victims transferred large sums of money for what they were told was "verification."
Some of this money, according to the FIRs, landed in a bank account belonging to a business run by the petitioner, called M/s Al Zeba Marinen Overseas. Importantly, the petitioner is not named as an accused in any of the four FIRs - only his bank account finds a mention.
The petitioner argued he was working abroad on a merchant ship at the time and had no idea his account was being misused. He claimed he had let a friend, Ganesh Khaire, use the account for an online gaming business, and that Khaire along with another person, Krishnakant Sharma, later misused it. He said he even filed his own cyber complaint against them in May 2024, once he found out.
Since he had to answer to police in three different states despite having health issues, including a heart condition and diabetes, he asked the court to either quash all four FIRs or, failing that, combine them into one investigation by a single agency.
Court's Observations
The bench first examined whether the Supreme Court should even entertain such a plea directly, instead of the petitioner going to the High Court first. Referring to earlier rulings, the court noted that approaching the Supreme Court straightaway under Article 32 is meant for cases involving a clear violation of fundamental rights, not routine FIR quashing pleas.
The bench observed,
"the petitioner has failed to establish infringement of any fundamental right warranting the exercise of this Court's jurisdiction under Article 32."
It added that he had not shown any exceptional circumstances that would justify skipping the normal legal route.
On the request to club the FIRs together, the court relied on settled principles from past judgments, noting that FIRs can only be merged if they arise from the same incident or the same transaction. Here, the bench found that was not the case.
The judgment stated that each FIR was filed by a different complainant, involving separate incidents of inducement and separate amounts of money.
The court observed,
"the mere fact that a part of the defrauded amounts is alleged to have been transferred in the bank account of petitioner's proprietary concern does not, by itself, establish that all the incidents form part of the same transaction."
The bench also flagged that investigations were still at an early stage, and cyber fraud cases typically require detailed tracing of money trails and digital evidence across jurisdictions. Combining the probes at this point, it said, could hurt the investigation rather than help it. The court also noted that clubbing cases could burden complainants, many from rural backgrounds, who would then have to travel to a single location to pursue their complaints.
Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition, refusing both to quash the FIRs and to club them together. The court gave the petitioner liberty to approach the appropriate forum - such as the concerned High Courts - for any relief he may be entitled to under law.
All arguments raised by both sides were left open for consideration by the trial courts on merits.
Case Details
Case Title: Rutvij Bhagat Singh Wakhare v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Case Number: Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 127 of 2026
Judge: Justice Sanjay Karol
Decision Date: July 24, 2026
 Act, 2007 KAAPA-300x169.webp)