Bombay High Court on Multiple FIRs in Medical Admission Fraud: Balancing Procedural Efficiency and Local Justice

Case Overview

In Argonda Arvind @ Adithya Prakash Kumar v. State of Maharashtra, the Bombay High Court handled a petition filed by a man running a medical admission counseling business. He was accused of cheating students and parents out of huge sums of money by falsely promising them medical college admissions. Facing multiple police cases across different cities, he asked the High Court to combine all his cases into one and to ban the police from filing any new cases against him. The Court agreed to combine his Mumbai cases to save time and court resources, but refused to move his Pune case or give him a blanket shield against future police complaints.

Facts

• The Business and Accusations: The petitioner ran Eduvio NEET Counselling through a private company. He allegedly collected massive amounts of money from students and parents under the false promise of securing medical college seats, but failed to deliver.
• Multiple Police Cases: Between March and April 2026, four separate FIRs were filed against him: three in Mumbai (Powai, Andheri, and D.B. Marg police stations) and one in Pune (Yerwada police station).
• The Petition: The petitioner asked the High Court to club all these cases together into one single proceeding and to issue an order stopping the police from filing any more FIRs against him in the future.

Court Observations & Ruling

• Combining Mumbai Cases: The Court noted that the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) in Mumbai was already investigating the three Mumbai cases, and charge-sheets were already submitted in a Mumbai court. Combining them makes total sense to avoid repeating the same evidence and having conflicting court rulings.
• Safeguarding Local Witness Convenience: Addressing the Pune FIR, the Court explicitly accepted the State’s submission that compelling local students, parents, and witnesses residing in Pune to travel to Mumbai for every hearing would cause disproportionate hardship. The bench reinforced that administrative convenience can never override victim accessibility and local justice.
• No Blanket Protection: : Relying heavily on established Supreme Court precedents such as Odela Satyam v. State of Telangana and Amandeep Singh Saran v. State of Delhi, the judges firmly ruled that no court can grant a blanket injunction restraining police from performing statutory duties regarding prospective complaints. Courts cannot pre-judge whether future allegations involve entirely independent transactions, meaning the petitioner must address any subsequent complaints individually through standard legal channels.

Decision

• Partly Allowed: The High Court partly allowed the writ petition and officially disposed of it based on its specific findings.
• Mumbai Consolidation Ordered: The three criminal cases registered at Powai, Andheri, and D.B. Marg police stations in Mumbai were formally ordered to be clubbed and processed together under the jurisdiction of the Economic Offences Wing and the 37th Esplanade Court, Mumbai.
• Pune Case & Future Actions Dismissed: The requests to transfer the Pune (Yerwada) FIR and to grant blanket immunity against any prospective police complaints were explicitly rejected, leaving the petitioner to pursue alternative legal remedies under the law as necessary.

Conclusion

This judgment shows a fair and balanced approach by the Bombay High Court. By combining interlinked city cases, the Court saved valuable judicial time. At the same time, by protecting the convenience of local witnesses in Pune and refusing to grant an unfair blanket shield against future crimes, the Court ensured that legal efficiency does not come at the expense of justice and fairness for victims.

Join our WhatsApp Groups ( Click Here) and Telegram Channel ( Click Here) and get instant notifications.

Editorial Note: This article has been reviewed by the LegalRath Editorial Team to ensure legal accuracy, editorial quality, and clarity before publication.