Amit Katyal vs State Of Haryana - 2026 Supreme(SC) 555

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(SC) 555

PANKAJ MITHAL, PRASANNA B. VARALE
Amit Katyal – Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Manish Vashishtha, AOR Mr. Upender Thakur, Adv. Ms. Deepti Pandey, Adv. Ms. Sonal Awasthi, Adv. Ms. Rajshree Singh, Adv. Ms. Bhawna Piplani, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Kaushik, Adv. Mr. Vivek Jain, Adv. Ms. Sahiba Singh, Adv. Mr. Mohit Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. S. V. Raju, A.S.G. 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. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Tanmay Mehta, Adv. Mr. Jagdish Chandra Solanki, Adv. Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv. Ms. Snehlata Surana, Adv. Mr. S.n.terdal (aor), Adv.

JUDGMENT :

PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.

FACTUAL MATRIX

1. The present writ petition, filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, has been instituted by the petitioners seeking appropriate directions from this Court for clubbing/transfer of multiple First Information Reports registered against them in different jurisdictions, arising out of the same set of transactions pertaining to the real estate project “Brahma City/Krrish World”, so as to obviate multiplicity of proceedings and to enable the petitioners to effectively defend themselves in the criminal proceedings. The facts leading to this Writ petition is thus:

2. The petitioners no.1 and 2 were the Directors in a company M/s Krrish Realtech Pvt. Ltd, which had launched several real estate projects, including a project namely 'Brahma City' / 'Krrish World', and had accepted bookings from the homebuyers towards sale of the plots in the said project.

3. The said Project got delayed and stuck on account of various reasons beyond the control of the petitioners, and as such, the petitioners could not deliver the possession of plots to all the homebuyers, which led to filing of several FIRs against them. Out of several FIRs, an FIR N

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(SC) 555

PANKAJ MITHAL, PRASANNA B. VARALEAmit Katyal – AppellantVersusState Of Haryana – Respondent

Cases Referred (4)

PANKAJ MITHAL, PRASANNA B. VARALE
Amit Katyal – Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana – Respondent