No Parallel Investigations: SC Clubs Multiple Real Estate Fraud FIRs

In a significant move to prevent judicial harassment and multiplicity of proceedings, the Supreme Court has ordered the consolidation of overlapping First Information Reports (FIRs) registered in different states against real estate developers involving the same project.

A bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale adjudicated upon a writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, where the petitioners sought the clubbing of multiple FIRs arising from the same set of transactions related to the 'Brahma City/Krrish World' project. The Court emphasized that the scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not permit a second FIR or fresh investigation into the same occurrence or transaction.

Court Reaffirms Prohibition on Multiple FIRs

The Court observed that while FIRs were registered in both Delhi and Haryana, a 'common thread' existed in the grievances of homebuyers regarding non-delivery of plots despite payment. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "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. 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." 

Consistency with Established Precedents

The bench relied heavily on the principles established in T.T Antony vs State of Kerala ( "(2001) 6 SCC 181": 2001 CaseBase(SC) 983), which mandates that only the earliest information regarding a cognizable offence satisfies the requirements of Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This legal proposition was further reinforced by referring to Arnab Goswami vs Union of India ( "(2020) 14 SCC 12": 2020 CaseBase(SC) 1099), Amish Devgan vs Union of India ( "(2021) 1 SCC 1": 2020 CaseBase(SC) 689), and Mohd.zubair vs NCT Delhi.

Directions Issued by the Court

The Court has the following directions:

"FIR No. 30/2019, PS Economic Offences Wing, Delhi, shall stand transferred and clubbed with FIR No. 439/2024, PS Sector-65, Gurugram, Haryana to be investigated in accordance with law."

Background:

The petitioners, former directors of M/s Krrish Realtech Pvt. Ltd., faced several FIRs in Delhi and Haryana after their real estate project 'Brahma City' was delayed. While the Economic Offence Wing (EOW) in Delhi was already investigating FIR No. 30/2019 (clubbing 83 complaints), a fresh FIR (No. 439/2024) was registered in Gurugram, Haryana, on nearly identical allegations of cheating and siphoning funds.

The State of Haryana, represented by ASG S.V. Raju, argued that the scale of the alleged fraud required extensive investigation by their Special Investigation Team (SIT). Conversely, the Delhi Police, represented by ASG Aishwarya Bhati, expressed no objection to a unified investigation.

While the Court allowed the clubbing of the existing FIRs to safeguard the petitioners' right to an effective defence, it declined a prayer for blanket protection against future FIRs. The Court clarified that if future FIRs are registered on the same transaction, the petitioners may avail legal remedies at that time.

Case Details:
Case No.: WRIT PETITION (CRL.) NO. 67/2025
NeutralCitation: 2026 INSC 509
Case Title: AMIT KATYAL & ANR. VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.
Appearances:
For the Respondent(s): Mr. S.V. Raju, learned ASG; Mrs. Aishwarya Bhati, learned ASG

Source: 2026 CaseBase(SC) 595