Louleen Kaur Bhalla vs. the State of Delhi

Page 1 of 13 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION I.A. NO.139335 OF 2026 IN M.A. NO.1390 OF 2026 IN M.A. DIARY NO.20977 OF 2025 IN W.P.(CRL.) NO. 242 OF 2019 LOULEEN KAUR BHALLA AND ANR. …PETITIONER(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF DELHI AND ANR. …RESPONDENT(S) WITH I.A. NO.196507 OF 2026 IN M.A. NO.2142 OF 2026 IN W.P.(CRL.) NO. 242 OF 2019 WITH I.A. NO.266450 OF 2026 IN M.A. NO.2699 OF 2026 IN M.A. DIARY NO.53926 OF 2026 IN W.P.(CRL.) NO. 242 OF 2019 Page 2 of 13 O R D E R 1. The three applications, i.e., (i) I.A. No. 139335 of 2026 , filed by Applicants - Ms. Lauleen Kaur Bhalla and Mr. Jagvinder Bhalla, who are the complainants in F.I.R. No.0275 of 2019 and F.I.R. No.0274 of 2019, Police Station Kasna, Uttar Pradesh; (ii) I.A. No.196507 of 2026, filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh; and (iii) I.A. No.266450 of 2026, filed by M/s Translite Scaffolding Limited, the original complainant in F.I.R. No.353 of 2015, seek, in substance, an overlapping relief: de-clubbing/de-tagging of FIRs, relating to the “Grand Venice”/“Grand Venezia” project, Greater Noida. 2. The first application (I.A. No. 139335 of 2026) seeks the de-clubbing/de-tagging of F.I.R. Nos. 0274 of 2019 and 0275 of 2019, or alternatively to modify the order dated 12.05.2022 and declare either FIR No. 0274/2019 or FIR No. 0275/2019 or any other allottee’s FIR (other than FIR No. 353/2015) as the principal FIR. Simultaneously, the other two applications (I.A. No. 196507 of 2026 and I.A. No. 266450 of 2026) seek to de- club/de-tag the F.I.R. No. 353 of 2015 , Police Station Kasna, Gautam Budh Nagar, from the cluster of FIRs, or substitution of Page 3 of 13 F.I.R. No.353 of 2015 as the principal/lead F.I.R. by another F.I.R. forming part of the cluster. Though notice was not issued in I.A. No. 266450 of 2026, a similar prayer has been made therein. The other two IAs have been heard extensively, and accordingly all three aforesaid IAs are being disposed of by this common order. 3. A brief reference to the background facts is necessary. The Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 242 of 2019 was instituted by the original petitioner, Mr. Satinder Singh Bhasin, under Article 32 of the Constitution, inter alia praying for consolidation of the numerous FIRs registered against him in the State of Uttar Pradesh and the National Capital Territory of Delhi , in relation to the Grand Venice project, lodged principally at the instance of allottees/investors of the project. By order dated 12.05.2022, this Court, in W.P. (Crl.) No. 242 of 2019 , recording the broad consensus of learned counsel appearing for the parties, directed that the said F.I.R.s be clubbed with F.I.R. No.353 of 2015 dated 09.06.2015 (registered under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Kasna, Gautam Budh Nagar, at the instance of M/s Translite Scaffolding Limited), which, being first in point of time, was designated as the principal/lead F.I.R. for Page 4 of 13 administrative convenience and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, with liberty to the Investigating Officer therein to file a composite/supplementary charge -sheet incorporating the material collected in the course of investigation of the other cases. By the judgment dated 08.08.2023, passed in W.P.(Crl.) No. 242 of 2019, this Court disposed of the writ petition, clarifying that the direction for transfer and clubbing of the F.I.R.s would continue to operate as the final order, and that the trial would proceed from the stage of the filing of the supplementary charge-sheet. 4. It may also be noted that in the very same writ petition, the original petitioner, Mr. Satinder Singh Bhasin, had sought the prayer of bail in respect of the F.I.R.s referred to therein. Accordingly, this Court, by order dated 06.11.2019 in W.P.(Crl.) No. 242 of 2019, granted bail to the petitioner, subject to certain conditions imposed therein. It was upon breach and non - compliance of the said conditions imposed vide order dated 06.11.2019 that the M.A.s came to be filed. 5. M.A. No.239 of 2024 was filed by the allottees of the Grand Venice project, seeking cancellation of the bail earlier granted to Page 5 of 13 the original petitioner. The said application was allowed by a detailed judgment dated 02.04.2026, passed in M.A. No. 239 of 2024 in W.P.(Crl.) No. 242 of 2019, whereby the petitioner’s bail was cancelled for breach of the conditions imposed. Paragraph 124 of the said judgment recorded that it would be open to any party to move an appropriate application before this Court on the issue of clubbing/de -clubbing of the F.I.R.s, and that any such appl ication would be decided on its own merits. It is pursuant to this liberty that the present applications have been filed. The aforementioned paragraph 124 has been reproduced as follows: “124. Another issue that has been raised by the petitioner is that the present two -judge Bench lacks the jurisdiction to modify or alter the orders clubbing the subject FIRs dated 12.05.2022 and 08.08.2023, as it was passed by a three -judge Bench. While we are n ot delving into this issue in depth as we are concerned with the cancellation of bail at this stage, however, we find reason to agree with the submission of Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, learned senior counsel on this aspect. It has been submitted that on oc casions, 2-judge Benches of this Court have modified or altered 3 -judge Bench decisions, for instance: Arjun Gopal v. Union of India and All India Judges Association. Needless to add, we clarify that it is open for any party to move an appropriate applicat ion before this Court on the issue of clubbing/de-clubbing of FIRs. Any such application, if so made, shall be decided on its own merits.” Page 6 of 13 6. Learned counsel for Applicants/Ms. Lauleen Kaur Bhalla and Mr. Jagvinder Bhalla, and learned counsel appearing for the State of Uttar Pradesh, submit, in substance, that: (i) F.I.R. No.353 of 2015 arises out of a commercial claim by a vendor for non-payment of dues and is unconnected, factually and legally, with the allegations of cheating, forgery, criminal breach of trust and criminal conspiracy levelled by the several home - buyers/allottees of the project; (ii) the continued clubbing of the allottees’ F.I.R.s with F.I.R. No.353 of 2015 has enabled the original petitioner to project the allottees’ grievances as civil disputes and to obtain interim orders, including an order of the High Court keeping the trial in abeyance , thereby impeding investigation and trial in the allottees’ F.I.R.s. 7. A substantially similar grievance has been voiced by M/s Translite Scaffolding Limited, the original complainant in F.I.R. No.353 of 2015 itself. It is submitted on its behalf that the said F.I.R. arises out of a distinct commercial transaction concerning unpaid rental dues and non -return of scaffolding material supplied for the Grand Venice project, and has no connection with the allotment -related allegations levelled by the other complainants; that the designation of F.I.R. No.353 of 2015 as Page 7 of 13 the principal/lead F.I.R. has been relied upon by the original petitioner to contend, before various fora, that the stay earlier operating in the proceedings arising from F.I.R. No.353 of 2015 extends to, and is determinative of the status of, other unconnected F.I.R.s clubbed with it; and that the applicant has, in the interregnum, also acquired an independent grievance in its capacity as an allottee, which it wishes to pursue on its own footing. It is accordingly prayed that F.I.R. No.353 of 2015 be de- tagged from the cluster and be removed as the principal/lead F.I.R. 8. These submissions have been seriously contested by learned counsel appearing for the original petitioner, whose detailed reply raises, in substance, two principal objections: It is firstly contended that the applications are not maintainable inasmuch as they seek, by way of miscellaneous applications filed in an already-disposed writ petition, to unsettle the very relief of consolidation that was granted in exercise of this Court’s jurisdic tion under Article 142 of the Constitution and subsequently made absolute by this Court vide judgment dated 08.08.2023 in W.P.(Crl.) No. 242/2019. It has been Page 8 of 13 accordingly contended that such a final direction, once merged in the judgment disposing of the writ petition, can be varied only in review or curative jurisdiction and not by a Bench of coordinate or lesser strength in collateral proceedings, and that the liberty granted in p aragraph 124 of the judgment dated 02.04.2026, wherein the bail of the original petitioner was cancelled, was confined to the context of the bail -cancellation proceedings then under consideration and cannot be read as a license to reopen the consolidation framework at large. It is secondly argued that no demonstrable prejudice has in fact resulted from the clubbing, inasmuch as a charge -sheet has already been filed in F.I.R. No.353 of 2015 and the Section 482 Cr.P.C. petition, seeking to quash the proceedings of Case No. 1559 of 2019, arising out of Case Crime No. 353 of 2015, that had earlier occasioned a stay of the connected proceedings has since been dismissed by the High Court on 09.04.2026, clearing the way for the trial to proceed. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, including the orders dated 12.05.2022 , passed in W.P.(Crl.) No. 242/2019, and the order dated Page 9 of 13 08.08.2023, passed in W.P.(Crl.) No. 242/2019 and the judgment dated 02.04.2026, passed in M.A. No. 239 of 2024 in W.P.(Crl.) No. 242 of 2019. 10. At the outset, we consider it appropriate to record that the clubbing of the several subsequent F.I.R.s with the first F.I.R. No.353 of 2015 as the principal F.I.R. was a case -management arrangement made by this Court in the peculiar facts of the earlier writ petition concerning a single real -estate project, lodging of a very large number of F.I.R.s, and complainants spread across two States, i.e., Uttar Pradesh and NCT of Delhi, with the object of avoiding multiplicity of proceedings and enabling coordinated investigation and monitoring. That arrangement was subsequently made absolute upon final disposal of the writ petition. Be that as it may, as the Writ Petition is already disposed of, it will not be appropriate to review the same now. However, that will not preclude this Court from clarifying the earlier order , without making any substantial alterations to it, if it is so required to dispel any confusion or doubts. Page 10 of 13 11. What has been genuinely and consistently urged by the applicants, including by the very complainant in F.I.R. No.353 of 2015, is an apprehension that the administrative clubbing of a totally unconnected commercial dispute with a set of subsequent F.I.R.s alleging grave offences of cheating and forgery against home -buyers has come to be construed, or is capable of being construed, as having the effect of making the progress of one contingent upon the other, or of one stay in one order or proceeding engulfing unrelated proceedings. That was never the object of the consolidation directed by this Court, and it is necessary that this position be placed beyond doubt. 12. We accordingly clarify that the clubbing of the several F.I.R.s pertaining to the Grand Venice/Grand Venezia project with F.I.R. No.353 of 2015, as directed vide orders dated 12.05.2022, passed in W.P.(Crl.) No. 242/2019 was, and remains, an arrangement for administrative coordination, and does not have the effect of fusing the several F.I.R.s into a composite offence or of subordinating the trial, or any interim order, in one to the trial or outcome of the lead F.I.R. No. 353 of 2015, arising as it does out of a commercial claim distinct in nature, origin, and evidence from the allegations levelled by the Page 11 of 13 home-buyers/allottees, shall be dealt with and tried strictly on its own merits, on the basis of the evidence gathered in the investigation and the charge-sheet(s) relatable to it. Equally, the several other F.I.R.s lodged by the home-buyers/allottees of the project shall each be dealt with and tried strictly on their own merits, on the basis of the material collected in the investigation/charge-sheet relatable to each such F.I.R. 13. It is further clarified that: (a) The pendency, progress or outcome of, and any interim or interlocutory order (including any order of stay) passed in F.I.R. No.353 of 2015 or the proceedings arising therefrom, shall have no bearing, procedural or substantive , upon the investigation, trial or disposal of the other F.I.R.s forming part of the consolidated cluster, and vice versa, as the FIR No. 353 of 2015 stands on a totally different footing than the remaining FIRs. (b) No finding, observation or order made in the proceedings relatable to one F.I.R. shall be treated as binding upon, or as constituting a precondition for, the proceedings relatable to any other F.I.R. forming part of the said cluster; Page 12 of 13 (c) The order dated 12.05.2022 passed by this Court in W.P.(Crl.) No. 242/2019, cannot mean to divest the trial court of the power contained in Chapter XVIII of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to the provisions on joinder of charg es and joint or separate trial contained in Chapter XVII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973). Having said that, the concerned trial court shall be at liberty to exercise power under the provisions contained in Chapter XVIII of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 or such other provision as may be applicable, to frame separate charges, order joint or separate trial, or otherwise regulate the trial of the several F.I.R.s and accused persons, as may be found necessary in the interest of a fair, expeditious and non -prejudicial trial, it being well settled that provisions relating to joinder of charges and joint trial are enabling in nature, to be applied having regard to the facts of each case, and are not to operate so as to delay or obstruct the trial of any set of F.I.R.s; (d) Nothing herein shall preclude the concerned trial court from proceeding with, and disposing of, the trial relatable to any F.I.R. or set of F.I.R.s independently of, and without awaiting the Page 13 of 13 outcome of, the proceedings relatable to F.I.R. No.353 of 2015 or any other F.I.R. forming part of the cluster. 14. We clarify that the above directions are issued solely to ensure that the administrative arrangement made by this Court does not, in its operation, cause prejudice or occasion delay to any set of complainants, and are not to be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the allegations contained in any of the F.I.R.s, or on the guilt or innocence of any accused, all of which shall be examined by the competent court(s) in accordance with law. 15. We also make it clear that the clarification in this order will not prejudice the original petitioner/accused in any manner. I.A. No.139335 of 2026, I.A. No.196507 of 2026 and I.A. No.266450 of 2026 are accordingly disposed of with the above clarification. ………….……………………………J. (SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA) ………………………………………………J. (NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH) NEW DELHI; SEPTEMBER 25, 2026.