Iran's criminal law in the material plurality crime is intended to aggravation of punishment the perpetrators but this is not so much in the immaterial plurality. the recognition of the immaterial plurality of the real is not easy. This difficulty is enhanced by the enactment of the Penal Code 1392 and generates the rule of “ plurality of result” because there is a similarity between this two juridical foundations. Therefore, it is imperative to carry out a study of the conditions for the realization of the immaterial plurality. The question of this research is what are the conditions for the realization of immaterial plurality and what is the point of differentiation and sharing with similar titles? The results of this study indicate that the conditions for the realization of the immaterial plurality are numerous; one of the most important of these is committing a unit behavior and violating more than one article of the Criminal law. Also, the most important aspect of differentiation of the immaterial plurality of the plurality of result is that, in the plurality of result from the unit behavior, various results are obtained, but in the immaterial plurality of the unit behavior, the unit result is obtained.

Cumulation shall be ideal when a person commits an action that contains elements of several crimes. Contrary to the substantive rules of ideal cumulation of crimes in the Islamic Penal Code, there is no specific provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure and there is a legal gap in this regard. Therefore, there are some ambiguities in the different stages of pre-trial and trial proceedings of such crimes, including the initiation of criminal prosecution, the arraignment, the issuance of criminal warrants, the jurisdiction of criminal courts and so on. In this study, using a descriptive-analytical method, we pointed out the ambiguities in the criminal proceedings of ideal cumulation of crimes and attempted to disambiguate them with a look to the Islamic jurisprudence and legal rules. We concluded that, due to the fact that judgments are based on criminal titles not acts, therefore, the criterion in the proceedings should be criminal titles. This approach will be elaborated in Qisas, Hadd and Ta’ ziri crimes in the present study.

“ Abstractive or ideal plurality” of crimes is a general cause of aggravation of punishment and terminologically it is the application of multiple criminal titles to a single act. This issue is of special significance in criminal law since determination of a punishment proportionate to the committed crime leads to compliance with human and Islamic principles such as criminal justice and proportionality of crime and punishment and as a result, the mental safety of society is ensured. The Iranian legislator, like a number of legal scholars, has accepted the ideal plurality of crimes theory, adopting the application of multiple punishments in some cases and their overlap in others. Given the Imamia jurists' opinions, it appears that where, in case of ideal plurality, a crime is committed against a limb or the soul or the limb and profit, the punishments overlap and the more blood money is specified and in case qisas for life and for other limbs or profits overlap, only qisas for life is administered according to the purported signification. But in cases such as crime leading to blood money for two limbs or two lives and the like, given the absence of text and the impossibility of extending the available texts to cases not mentioned therein and the principle of non-overlap, determination of multiple punishments may be justified. The conclusion is that the principle of criminal justice which is deducted from intellect and sharia has not been complied with in certain articles of law considered in this paper and the Islamic penal code needs to be amended.

This paper firstly aims to study the developments of the plurality of crimes in the statute of the Taziri Imprisonment Reduction adopted in 2020, then to deal with the question that which of the following countries' legal systems, i.e. Iran and Jordan, has followed a more reasonable policy regarding the issue. The findings reveal that in spite of the existence of common strategies including the explicit admission of material and spiritual plurality, the single and cumulative penalization and the most sever punishment for the spiritual plurality, the two legal systems have also adopted different strategies. For example, in Jordanian law enjoys the following merits: the existence of the explicit stipulation of the withdrawal of spiritual plurality from the single conduct having multiple criminal descriptions and the admission of the principle of material pluralization of crimes. On the contrary, the followings are known as the merits of the Iranian law: the separation of various crimes in penalization, the application of various severe punishments based on the number of crimes, the declaration of the most severe punishment for multiple results, the necessity of imposing of consequential or supplementary punishments similar to the complimentary punishments, the possibility of the mitigation of punishments, the determining of the lenient measure effects of criminal policy.

Relationship between crimes in general, is conceivable in different forms which is due to crime unity by multiple offenders or a multiplicity of crime by unity offender or unity motivation of multiple offenders. In addition, in real concurrence of crime we can attach a special relationship between some of the offenses in particular meaning that despite having an independence criminal description, is impossible to separate from each other and they often commit together and that's why they call them related offences. Related offences in the special status have three noteworthy approaches: unity of offences, ideal concurrence and real concurrence. In this research, by studying the legislative and judicial procedures, evidence of any opinions are expressed and finally, we explain theory and the reasons for its adoption.

Plurality of crimeinter alia is a general aggravated factor of the punishment, which divided into two material (committing several independent criminal behaviors) and constructive (committing one behavior with varied criminal titles) types. Additionally, the issue of plurality of result (committing one behavior with one or more criminal titles, albeit with varied results) is raised.Although, plurality of result can be called as an independent factor to aggravate punishment, along with material or constructive plurality, but many authors do not believe in the independence of this institution and consider it as a subset of constructive plurality. After years of legal gap, the Islamic Penal Code 1392 has addressed plurality of result and considered it as a subset of material plurality.Obviously, given that the amount of aggravation in material plurality is more than constructive plurality, it is highly important to elucidate the basics of the lawmaker’s approach, along with analyzing and describingof the institution itself; it is what the present paper attempts to address.

The multiple Result is a situation that several results may stem from one criminal behaviour. Is the multiple Result an example of the spiritual or physical multiple crimes? There are different opinions among lawyers. Formerly, it has been considered as a multiple crime by the judicial president and equal to criminal behaviour with various titles. In 2013, Iranian Parliament with providing a criminal legislative policy and enacting Article 134 (Note1), determined the multiple result as physical (material) multiplicity and ended these dissensions. The multiple result could be realized within the multiple victim of an offence and subject of crime, and this condition is different from the situation that is resulted in several implications from one criminal behaviour. Although, the multiple result is similar to spiritual (moral) or physical (material) multiplicity in different ways, it is a different conception from those two. The purpose of this research is providing a description and analyzation of this subject and its constituent elements, investigation of its real position and implications and expression of its differences and similarities towards the multiple crime such as spiritual (moral) or physical (material), that would be studied by the descriptive and analytic method.

The prank call crime refers to a new crime with a certain nature that using telephones and other telecommunication devices plays role in its formation. In some cases, the perpetrators commit other criminal acts besides prank call, like insult and threat, and in some other cases, these devices are employed just to commit the above-mentioned crimes. There are differences of opinion in distinguishing the application of the rules of multiplicity, whether material or spiritual, or not applying these rules in case of committing this crime simultaneously with other crimes like insult or threat, so that some in judicial procedure and legal doctrine consider it as “special criminal title” and with the certain criminal title of “prank call”. Others consider spiritual and group multiplicity as material multiplicity. In this condition, besides the above-mentioned cases, there is the idea of ​​multiplicity of results; while reviewing the current arguments in judicial procedure and legal doctrine, as well as analyzing the elements of the prank call crime, insult, or threat, the authors agree to accept another approach, i.e. a combination of spiritual multiplicity (multiplicity of titles) and material multiplicity, discussed in detail in the text of the paper.

Abstract Punishment, regardless of its quantity and quality, is always a requirement for the protection of social order, which has been determined by the legislature against crime and violation of norms, and is sometimes intensified. Intensification of punishment is one of the components of the principle of personal punishment and of the practical and challenging nature of public criminal law. One of the common causes of this issue is the number of credits that the legislator has dealt with in Article 3 of the Islamic Penal Code (approved in 1392). Due to the importance of discussing pluralism in criminal law, dire consequences and its non-belonging to a specific crime, the present study, while examining this important and explaining its various dimensions, expresses the challenges that have arisen in line with the provisions of this institution in practice, and to overcome them Has stated solutions. The main question of the article is what challenges can be faced by the institution of credit institution in practice and what solutions can be offered?