'Parallel FIRs On Same Allegations Impermissible', Supreme Court Directs Clubbing Of FIRs Linked To Brahma City/Krrish World Project

Reiterating that there cannot be multiple FIRs in respect of the same transaction or occurrence, the Supreme Court ordered the clubbing of a Haryana FIR with an earlier Delhi Economic Offences Wing (EOW) against NCR-based real estate developer Amit Katyal arising out of the alleged real estate fraud linked to the “Brahma City/Krrish World” project.

“…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.”, observed a bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B Varale, while referring to T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC 181.

“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 17 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 court added.

Background

The case concerned allegations against the Petitioner of cheating, criminal breach of trust, and misappropriation of funds collected from homebuyers who were allegedly promised plots and flats in the real estate project but were not given possession despite substantial payments.

The petitioners challenged the FIR registered at Police Station Sector-65, Gurugram, contending that multiple FIRs had already been registered in Delhi and Haryana over the same project and identical allegations. They argued that repeated investigations across jurisdictions caused serious prejudice and amounted to harassment.

Before the Court, the petitioners relied heavily on FIR registered by the Delhi EOW, in which 83 complaints by homebuyers had already been clubbed together. A chargesheet had also been filed in that matter and trial proceedings were pending.

The petitioners further pointed out that in another FIR registered in Delhi in 2016, the investigating agency itself had concluded that the transactions were “clearly civil in nature” and that no element of criminal inducement or concealment was made out.

Opposing the plea, the State of Haryana argued that the allegations disclosed a large-scale fraud affecting innocent homebuyers across multiple States and involving diversion of funds through shell companies. The State submitted that a Special Investigation Team had already been constituted and an extensive probe into the money trail was underway.

The Delhi Police, however, informed the Court that it had no objection if the investigation was consolidated and conducted through a single agency.

Decision

Partly allowing the Writ Petition, the judgment authored by Justice Varale held that the subsequent FIR registered in Gurugram was unsustainable; however, it rejected the petitioner's prayer regarding seeking a direction to restrain or forbid future FIRs in the case.

The Court observed that the allegations in the Delhi and Haryana FIRs revolved around the same core accusation that homebuyers were induced to invest in the project, money was collected, but possession of flats and plots was never handed over.

“…subsequent FIR bearing No. 439/2024 registered at Police Station Sector-65, Gurugram, Haryana arises out of the same set of allegations and forms part of the same transaction which is already the subject matter of FIR No. 30/2019 registered at the Economic Offences Wing, Delhi. Permitting parallel investigations in such circumstances would not only be contrary to the scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure but would also result in manifest prejudice to the petitioners and multiplicity of proceedings.”, the court observed.

With regard to the prayer restraining the future FIRs, the Court observed:

“It is neither appropriate nor permissible for this Court to grant a blanket direction restraining coercive steps in respect of future FIRs. However, it is clarified that in the event of any such FIR is registered on the basis of the same transaction, it shall be open to the petitioners to avail such remedies as may be available to them in law.”

Cause Title: AMIT KATYAL & ANR. VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 516

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Adv. (argued by) Mr. Siddhartha Dave, Sr. Adv. Mr. Manish Vashishtha, AOR Mr. Vivek Jain, Adv. Mr. Upender Thakur, Adv. Ms. Sahiba Singh, Adv. Ms. Deepti Pandey, Adv. Ms. Sunayna Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Sadiq Noor, Adv. Mr. Rohit Nair, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. S. V. Raju, A.S.G. (argued by) Mr. Abhinav Bajaj, A.A.G. Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, AOR Mr. Saksham Ojha, Adv. Ms. Sabarni Som, Adv. Mr. Aman Dev Sharma, Adv. Ms. Geetashi Chandna, Adv. Mr. Gaj Singh, Adv. Mrs. Aishwarya Bhati Ld, A.S.G.(argued by) Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Ms. Priyanka Terdal, Adv. Mr. Tanmay Mehta, Adv. Mr. Jagdish Chandra Solanki, Adv. Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv. Ms. Snehlata Surana, Adv. Mr. Koney Rama Mohan Rao, Adv. Ms. Mehak Sandhu, Adv. Ms. Ridhi Jad, Adv.