Supreme Court Issues Notice on Pranit More's Plea to Club Multiple FIRs in Biryani Controversy Case

Supreme Court of India Issues Notice on Pranit More's Plea to Consolidate Multiple FIRs in Biryani Pricing Case

The Supreme Court of India has issued a notice seeking responses on a petition filed by Pranit More requesting that multiple first information reports in the biryani pricing controversy be consolidated into a single proceeding. The bench, comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V. Mohana, passed the order in writ petition W.P. (Crl.) No. 367 of 2026 on September 21, 2026, but made clear that the current order is limited to inviting submissions from the respondent and does not constitute any final decision on the merits of the consolidation request.

The case centres on a controversy involving the pricing of biryani at ₹370, which has resulted in the filing of multiple criminal complaints against More. The petitioner has approached the Supreme Court seeking relief through a writ petition, arguing that having multiple FIRs registered in relation to the same subject matter leads to duplication of proceedings, multiplicity of trials, and potential inconsistency in findings. Such consolidation requests are not uncommon in criminal law, where courts are often asked to exercise discretionary powers to club proceedings when they arise from the same facts or transaction.

The Bench's Procedural Step

By issuing a notice and calling for responses, the three-judge bench has taken the case to its next procedural stage. The State of Maharashtra and other respondents will now be required to file their written submissions addressing More's consolidation plea. This is a standard practice in writ petitions before the Supreme Court, where the court first seeks the views of all parties before making substantive pronouncements on the relief sought.

The absence of any interim order or immediate decision on the clubbing of FIRs indicates that the bench intends to hear arguments from both sides before determining whether consolidation is warranted in this particular case. The court's decision to issue notice suggests that the petition raises questions worthy of consideration, though the issuance of notice does not predetermine the outcome.

Background of the Biryani Pricing Controversy

The biryani pricing controversy has generated significant public and legal attention, with the ₹370 price point becoming the focal point of multiple criminal complaints. While the exact nature and details of each FIR are not fully clear from the court's order, the existence of multiple complaints stemming from the same underlying transaction or series of events is the core issue that More has brought before the Supreme Court.

Multiple FIRs arising from the same subject matter can create several complications in criminal proceedings. They can lead to parallel investigations, inconsistent findings, the possibility of conflicting bail orders, and duplication of evidence recording. Courts have generally recognised that such situations are inefficient and potentially prejudicial to the accused, and have therefore developed jurisprudence permitting the consolidation or clubbing of such proceedings under the Criminal Procedure Code.

Legal Framework for Clubbing FIRs

The power to club or consolidate proceedings in criminal matters is typically exercised under Section 217 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, or through inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code. Courts have held that when multiple FIRs relate to the same transaction or series of transactions, or when they arise from the same set of facts, consolidation serves the interests of justice by avoiding multiplicity of proceedings and ensuring consistency in findings.

More's petition appears to invoke these principles, arguing that the multiple FIRs in the biryani case should be treated as one consolidated proceeding rather than separate criminal actions. The bench's decision to issue notice suggests that the court found the petition to be sufficiently substantive to warrant a response from the state authorities.

Implications of the Notice Stage

At this stage, the bench has not granted or rejected More's plea. The issuance of notice is a neutral procedural step that allows the court to gather all relevant information and arguments before deciding whether consolidation is appropriate. The respondents, particularly the State of Maharashtra, will now have an opportunity to explain why the FIRs should not be clubbed, or alternatively, to agree to consolidation if that is their position.

The court may also seek clarification on the nature of the FIRs, the dates on which they were registered, the specific charges contained in each, and the stage of investigation or prosecution in each case. These details will be crucial in determining whether consolidation is feasible and appropriate.

Procedural Considerations

Once responses are filed, the bench will examine the submissions and hear arguments from counsel for More and the state. Depending on the nature and complexity of the issues raised, the court may schedule hearings or may decide the matter based on written submissions alone. If the court finds merit in the consolidation plea, it can pass an order directing that the multiple FIRs be treated as one for the purpose of investigation and prosecution.

Conversely, if the court finds that the FIRs are sufficiently distinct in their subject matter or that consolidation would cause more harm than good, it may dismiss the petition. The court could also pass a conditional order, permitting consolidation only with respect to certain FIRs while keeping others separate.