Article 32: Supreme Court Says Fundamental Rights Violation Or Exceptional Circumstances Must Be Shown

The Supreme Court has said that Article 32 of the Constitution cannot be invoked without demonstrating infringement of fundamental rights or exceptional circumstances, as it dismissed a plea by a man seeking quashing of multiple FIRs in connection with allegations that his bank account was used in a cyber fraud.

A Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Augustine George Masih also rejected the plea by Rutvij Bhagat Singh Wakhare seeking clubbing of multiple FIRs lodged against him, namely two in Bengaluru and one each in Pune city and Rourkela between May 2024 and June 2024.

Why did the Supreme Court refuse to order a composite investigation?

Court said cyber frauds of the present nature are often executed through complex technological means involving multiple bank accounts, fictitious identities and digital networks operating across different jurisdictions.

Investigation into such offences necessarily requires detailed forensic examination of electronic evidence, analysis of banking transactions and tracing of money trails to identify the persons involved.

Given that the investigating agencies are yet to ascertain the complete flow of funds and unravel the entire chain of events, a direction for a composite investigation may impede a fair and effective investigation, Court held.

"Several cyber frauds are now on the rise and the offence, considering its gravity and implications cannot be taken lightly. More so, when the victims of crime largely hailing from the rural areas, unaware and ignorant of the process and the mechanism adopted by the criminals are allured to overcome their poverty," the Bench said.

What were the allegations in the cyber fraud FIRs?

The FIRs alleged that the complainants were contacted by unknown persons posing as police officials and were falsely informed that several money laundering activities had been carried out in their names.

On this pretext, the complainants were allegedly induced to transfer large sums of money to various bank accounts for verification and investigation.

It was alleged that part of the money was credited to an account maintained in the name of ‘M/s Al Zeba Marinen Overseas’, a proprietary concern of the petitioner. Though the petitioner was not named as an accused in the FIRs, the bank account belonging to his proprietary concern was mentioned in them.

The petitioner claimed that the bank account was operated by Ganesh Khaire and Krishnakant Sharma. After becoming aware of the alleged misuse of the bank account, he lodged a cyber crime complaint on May 9, 2024 against the two persons, alleging that they had fraudulently used the bank account of his proprietary concern for unlawful money transfers.

Why did the Supreme Court refuse to entertain the Article 32 plea?

Examining the matter, the Bench said Article 32 is the constitutional conduit through which the Supreme Court may issue ‘appropriate’ writs for enforcement of fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution.

"The right to approach this court under Article 32 is itself a fundamental right and has been aptly described by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar as the ‘heart and soul’ of the Constitution. The jurisdiction conferred under Article 32 is undoubtedly wide. At the same time, it is an extraordinary remedy which must be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances, particularly when it is necessary to secure the ends of justice or to prevent the infringement of fundamental rights," the Bench said.

Court pointed out that its power under Article 32 is broad enough to quash criminal proceedings in an appropriate case to prevent abuse of the process of law.

However, while the existence of an alternative statutory remedy does not by itself bar the exercise of Article 32 jurisdiction, an aggrieved party is ordinarily expected to first approach the high court.

"It is only where the facts disclose a violation of fundamental right(s) or other compelling circumstances that this Court would directly exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 32," the Bench said.

Court noted that the petitioner had only contended that he was serving abroad on a merchant ship, had no knowledge of the alleged transactions and that the bank account was operated and misused by Khaire and Sharma.

"In our considered opinion, the petitioner has failed to establish infringement of any fundamental right warranting the exercise of this Court’s jurisdiction under Article 32. He has also not been able to show the existence of any exceptional or exigent circumstances so as to justify bypassing the procedure available under CrPC," the Bench said.

Court said that before it could examine whether the FIRs should be quashed, it would be appropriate for the petitioner to pursue the remedies available under Article 226 of the Constitution and/or Section 482 CrPC.

Can multiple FIRs be clubbed when the cyber fraud modus operandi is similar?

The Supreme Court said the law governing registration of multiple FIRs is fairly well settled.

It noted that there cannot be a second FIR in respect of the same incident or occurrence, or incidents forming part of the same transaction. However, a subsequent FIR is permissible where it relates to a distinct occurrence or offence, is a counter-complaint or reveals a larger conspiracy.

"Registration of multiple FIRs is impermissible if they relate to the same incident or form part of the same transaction. However, where the subsequent FIR relates to a distinct offence/incident or a separate transaction, its registration cannot be faulted," the Bench said.

In the present case, Court noted that each FIR had been lodged by a different complainant who was allegedly induced to part with money on different occasions, with no live link or connectivity between the transactions involving different sets of persons.

The mere fact that part of the defrauded amounts was allegedly transferred into the bank account of the petitioner’s proprietary concern did not, by itself, establish that all the incidents formed part of the same transaction, Court said.

Though the alleged modus operandi appeared to be similar, the victims, amounts involved, transactions complained of and consequences suffered were distinct.

"Prima facie, therefore, the subject FIRs relate to separate transactions disclosing distinct offences and cannot be said to arise out of the same transaction," the Bench said.

Court accordingly declined to grant relief but granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum for relief or avail any other remedy available in law.

Case Title: Rutvij Bhagat Singh Wakhare Vs The State of Maharashtra & Ors

Bench: Justices Sanjay Karol and Augustine George Masih

Date of Judgment: July 24, 2026