When multiple FIRs exist, each court still has to decide separately whether to secure the accused’s presence by summons or warrant, but higher courts have stressed that process should not become a tool of harassment through repetitive, overlapping cases. In practice, conflicts arise when different courts issue parallel warrants or non‑bailable warrants without first trying summons or bailable steps, or when multiple FIRs from the same transaction are not clubbed or coordinated, creating a risk of repeated arrests and fragmented proceedings. With good legal guidance, an accused should step by step: map all pending FIRs and orders; ask lawyers to seek clubbing or coordinated handling where the incidents are part of the same transaction; request that courts follow the sequential approach (summons → bailable warrant → non‑bailable warrant only if truly needed); and, where warrants are excessive or duplicative, move the High Court to quash repetitive FIRs or harmonise process so presence is secured without multiple, overlapping coercive measures.
