State (NCT of Delhi) v. Khimji Bhai Jadeja; 2026 INSC 25 - CrPC/BNSS - Triple Tests - Same Transaction - Consolidation Of FIRs

Note

You can read our notes on this judgment in our Supreme Court Daily Digests. If you are our subscriber, you should get it in our Whatsapp CaseCiter Community at about 9pm on every working day. If you are not our subscriber yet, you can register by clicking here:

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 218-223 -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’ - 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 - 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 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. (Para 19-20)

FIRs - Consolidation of FIRs is permissible in law but that would have also depended upon the conclusions to be arrived at after the investigation. (Para 21)

Case Info


Key details

  • Case name: State (NCT) of Delhi v. Khimji Bhai Jadeja.
  • Neutral citation: 2026 INSC 25.
  • Coram: SANJAY KUMAR, J; ALOK ARADHE, J.
  • Judgment date: January 6, 2026.

Caselaws and citations referred

  • S. Swamirathnam v. State of Madras, AIR 1957 SC 340 = (1956) 2 SCC 144.
  • Banwarilal Jhunjhunwala v. Union of India, AIR 1963 SC 1620 = 1963 Supp (2) SCR 338.
  • State of A.P. v. Cheemalapati Ganeswara Rao, AIR 1963 SC 1850 = (1964) 3 SCR 297.
  • State of Jharkhand v. Lalu Prasad Yadav, (2017) 8 SCC 11.
  • T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC 181.
  • Arnab Ranjan Goswami v. Union of India, (2020) 14 SCC 12.
  • Amish Devgan v. Union of India, (2021) 1 SCC 1.
  • Abhishek Singh Chauhan v. Union of India, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1936.
  • Amanat Ali v. State of Karnataka, (2023) 14 SCC 801.
  • Satinder Singh Bhasin v. State of U.P., (2023) 14 SCC 805.
  • Radhey Shyam v. State of Haryana, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1935.
  • Ravinder Singh Sidhu v. State of Punjab, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1164.
  • Alok Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1728.
  • Amandeep Singh Saran v. State of Delhi, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1851.
  • Narinderjit Singh Sahni v. Union of India, (2002) 2 SCC 210.

Statutes/laws referred

  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Sections 31, 71 IPC cross-reference; 218(1); 219; 220(1); 223(a), (d); 325; 395(2); 161; 162.
  • Indian Penal Code, 1860: Sections 420; 120B; 71.
  • Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: Section 242 (noted as expanding the limit to five offences).
  • Constitution of India: Article 142.