Victims have long been “backed into a corner”, Supreme Court says
Supreme Court of India. File | Photo credit: The Hindu
The Supreme Court on Thursday (May 21, 2026) observed that there is an urgent need for the criminal justice system to adopt a more victim-centred approach while refusing to entertain a plea seeking consolidation of FIRs registered in several states by a fund fraud accused.
“…You have taken money from poor people and now you want us to provide you with the luxury of facing trial at one place… We have only talked about jurisprudence targeting the accused in criminal law. The victims have always been cornered. Unfortunately, we have never thought of the victims,” said Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, who presided over the three-count court.
The Bench, also comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M. Pancholi, heard a petition filed by Upendra Nath Mishra, accused in the multi-hundred crore chip fund scam involving Micro Finance Limited, which was being investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
Senior advocate Aman Lekhi, appearing for the accused, argued that where there are multiple inducements and cheating as part of a larger criminal conspiracy, all such transactions could be merged into a single FIR. “I’m not saying don’t prosecute. I’m questioning the manner of prosecution,” he added.
However, the Bench disagreed with the interpretation, noting that each overt act independently gives rise to local jurisdiction. “When a criminal conspiracy results in some overt acts, each of those overt acts creates a separate jurisdiction for trial… The Court has previously approved that conspiracy charges and subsequent acts can be tried in different courts,” Justice Bagchi noted.
The Chief Justice further pointed out the heavy financial burden such a lawsuit would place on the victims, many of whom were small investors based in remote regions.
“An investment of ₹10,000 from one individual, multiplied by thousands of people, can amount to millions for you. But for that poor individual, it is only ₹10,000 and he wants to recover only that amount. You want him to travel from a remote village in Odisha to Delhi or Mumbai… How are the victims’ rights protected if the courts protect.”
The Bench further observed that the victims cannot be made to travel from one place to another for the convenience of the accused and that the accused has to face the extent of the financial ruin caused to the vulnerable investors.
“It was the poor victims who were lured to invest their hard earned money in your reading fund company…labourers, senior citizens, people who invested the meager life savings they had and now you want them to come and sit against you at a place of your choice…Go to different parts of the country and see how the victims have been duped,” the CJI added.
However, the Bench acknowledged that recent changes in the criminal law reflected a growing recognition of victims’ rights in the criminal justice system.
After the court said it was not in favor of clubbing FIRs, Mr. Lekhi sought permission to withdraw the plea, which the Bench granted.
Published – 21 May 2026 13:33 IST