Can’t Have Multiple FIRs In Respect Of Same Transaction: Supreme Court Allows Clubbing Of FIRs In Gurugram Real Estate Fraud Case
The Supreme Court held that permitting multiple FIRs in different jurisdictions would result in avoidable multiplicity of proceedings.
Justice Pankaj Mithal, Justice Prasanna B. Varale, Supreme Court
While reaffirming the view that there cannot be multiple FIRs in respect of the same occurrence or transaction giving rise to cognizable offences, the Supreme Court has ordered the clubbing of FIRs against the Directors of a company in a real estate fraud case involving a project named 'Brahma City'/'Krrish World' in Gurugram.
The Supreme Court was considering a writ petition, filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, by the petitioners seeking appropriate directions from the Court for clubbing/transfer of multiple First Information Reports registered against them in different jurisdictions, arising out of the same set of transactions about the real estate project “Brahma City/Krrish World”, to obviate multiplicity of proceedings
The Division Bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale held, “In such a situation, the principle laid down in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala (Supra), as consistently reaffirmed in subsequent decisions of this Court, squarely applies, inasmuch as there cannot be multiple FIRs in respect of the same occurrence or transaction giving rise to cognizable offences. The scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure postulates a single, comprehensive investigation, with liberty to the investigating agency to conduct further investigation and file supplementary reports, rather than permitting parallel and overlapping investigations in different fora.”
AOR Manish Vashishtha represented the Petitioner while Additional Solicitor General S. V. Raju represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The petitioners were the Directors of a company M/s Krrish Realtech Pvt. Ltd, which had launched several real estate projects, including a project named 'Brahma City' / 'Krrish World', and had accepted bookings from the homebuyers towards the sale of the plots in the said project. The said Project got delayed and stuck on account of various reasons, and the petitioners could not deliver the possession of plots to all the homebuyers, which led to the filing of several FIRs against them. Out of several FIRs, an FIR was registered by the Economic Offence Wing of Delhi Police (EOW), in which the complaints made by 83 homebuyers/victims were clubbed and investigated. The other aspects, including the allegations of cheating with the homebuyers and diverting funds received from the homebuyers to other holding companies and misappropriating such funds for personal gains, were also subject matter of investigation by the Economic Offence Wing. Subsequently, complaints made by approximately 28 other home buyers were being investigated by the EOW in the said FIR.
The FIRs were registered with the Economic Offence Wing (EOW), New Delhi, against the petitioners and others associated with the real estate projects of M/s Krrish Realtech Pvt. Ltd. The FIRs were registered at various places, some in Delhi and some in Haryana. The petitioner Amit Katyal has been in judicial custody at present in some other FIR. Hence, the petitioner filed the Writ petition before the Apex Court seeking the clubbing/transferring of FIRs and also seeking restriction on any coercive action against the Petitioners in respect of the FIRs which may be registered in future on the basis of the same transactions.
Reasoning
On a perusal of the material produced, the Bench noted that though the FIRs were registered at various places i.e. some in Delhi and some in Haryana, a common thread in the nature of grievances was raised by the complainants, who were primarily homebuyers, that in spite of an assurance given by the petitioners and money accepted by the petitioners, the petitioners failed to hand over the possession of flats to the respective homebuyers.
“There is also some merit in the submissions of the learned senior counsel for the Petitioners that the multiplicity of the offences registered at various places would cause some prejudice to the Petitioners. It is submitted by Mr. Raju that considering the nature of allegations, the Haryana Police constituted SIT and an extensive investigation is carried out by the Haryana Police. Mrs. Bhati submitted that Delhi Police is having no objection if the investigation is carried out by Haryana Police”, it added.
Reiterating that there cannot be multiple FIRs in respect of the same occurrence or transaction giving rise to cognizable offence, the Bench stated, “Permitting multiple FIRs and investigations in different jurisdictions on the same set of facts would not only be contrary to the settled legal position but would also result in avoidable multiplicity of proceedings, conflicting findings and serious prejudice to the petitioners. At the same time, consolidation of such FIRs at one place would subserve the ends of justice by ensuring a coordinated, effective and complete investigation, while also safeguarding the right of the petitioners to mount an effective and meaningful defence in a singular proceeding.”
The Bench thus clubbed the FIRs to be investigated in accordance with law. Partly allowing the appeal, the Bench held that it was not permissible for the Court to grant a blanket direction restraining coercive steps in respect of future FIRs.
Cause Title: Amit Katyal & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 509)
Appearance
Petitioner: AOR Manish Vashishtha, Advocates Upender Thakur, Deepti Pandey, Sonal Awasthi, Rajshree Singh, Bhawna Piplani, Abhishek Kaushik, Vivek Jain, Sahiba Singh, Mohit Singh
Respondent: Additional Solicitor General S. V. Raju, AAG Abhinav Bajaj, AOR Samar Vijay Singh, Advocates Saksham Ojha, Sabarni Som, Aman Dev Sharma, Geetashi Chandna, Gaj Singh, ASG Aishwarya Bhati, AOR Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Advocates Tanmay Mehta, Jagdish Chandra Solanki, Rajat Nair