Victims have long been ‘pushed into a corner’, says Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Thursday (May 21, 2026) observed that there is a pressing need for the criminal justice system to adopt a more victim-centric approach while refusing to entertain a plea seeking the clubbing of FIRs registered across several States by an accused in a chit fund scam. “...You have taken money from poor people, and now you want us to ensure that you are provided the luxury of facing trial in one place... We have only been referring to accused-centric jurisprudence in criminal law. The victims have always been pushed into a corner. Unfortunately, we have never thought of the victims,” Chief Justice of India () Surya Kant, heading a three-judge Bench, orally remarked. The Bench, also comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M. Pancholi, was hearing a petition filed by Upendra Nath Mishra, an accused in the multi-hundred-crore chit fund scam involving Micro Finance Limited, which was probed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). Senior advocate Aman Lekhi, appearing for the accused, contended that where multiple acts of inducement and cheating arise in pursuance of a larger criminal conspiracy, all such transactions could be clubbed into a single FIR. “I am not saying don’t prosecute. I am questioning the method of prosecution,” he submitted. The Bench, however, disagreed with the interpretation, observing that each overt act independently gives rise to territorial jurisdiction for trial. “When a criminal conspiracy results in some overt acts, each of those overt acts creates a separate jurisdiction for trial... The court has previously endorsed that the conspiracy charge and the subsequent acts can be tried before different courts,” Justice Bagchi remarked. The Chief Justice further pointed to the severe financial burden such a plea would impose on victims, many of whom were small investors residing in remote regions. “An investment of ₹10,000 by one individual, multiplied by thousands of people, may amount to crores for you. But for that poor individual, it is only ₹10,000, and he seeks recovery of only that amount. You want him to travel from a remote village in Odisha to Delhi or from Bombay... How are victims’ rights protected if courts entertain such prayers?”, he remarked. The Bench further observed that victims cannot be compelled to travel from one place to another for the convenience of the accused and that the accused must confront the extent of financial ruin inflicted upon vulnerable investors. “These were poor victims who were allured into investing their hard-earned money in your chit fund company...labourers, senior citizens, people who invested whatever little life savings they had, and now you want them to come and depose against you at a place of your choice... Go to various parts of the country and see the manner in which the victims were cheated,” the added. The Bench, however, acknowledged that recent amendments to criminal law reflected a growing recognition of victims’ rights within the criminal justice system. After the court indicated it was not inclined to club the FIRs, Mr. Lekhi sought permission to withdraw the plea, which the Bench granted.