1. Multiple FIRs registered in different states against company directors for alleged cheating and misappropriation in real estate project — consolidation sought. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(Online)(SC) 111523
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Prasanna B. Varale, J
Amit Katyal – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CRL.) NO. 67/2025
Under the Code of Criminal Procedure, only the first information regarding a cognizable offence satisfies Section 154; consequently, there can be no second FIR or fresh investigation for the same occurrence or transaction, as the law mandates a single, comprehensive investigation.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Art. 32 - Code of Criminal Procedure - S. 154, S. 155, S. 156, S. 157, S. 162, S. 169, S. 170 and S. 173 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - S. 406, S. 409, S. 420 and S. 120B - Registration of multiple FIRs for the same transaction - Whether consecutive FIRs for the same cognizable offence or incident are permissible - No, there can be no second FIR and consequently no fresh investigation on receipt of subsequent information in respect of the same cognizable offence or incident; investigating officer must investigate connected offences found in the course of the same transaction and file one or more reports. (Paras 21-22)
(B) Investigation - Scope and nature - The scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure postulates a single, comprehensive investigation with liberty to conduct further investigation and file supplementary reports, rather than permitting parallel and overlapping investigations in different fora; permitting multiple FIRs on the same set of facts results in avoidable multiplicity of proceedings, conflicting findings, and prejudice to the accused. (Paras 24-25)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners, directors of M/s Krrish Realtech Pvt. Ltd, faced several FIRs in Delhi and Haryana relating to the "Brahma City/Krrish World" project for failing to deliver plots to homebuyers and misappropriating funds. FIR No. 30/2019 (EOW, Delhi) clubbed complaints from 83 victims. Subsequently, FIR No. 439/2024 was registered at PS Sector-65, Gurugram, Haryana on primarily the same allegations. The petitioners sought the clubbing or transfer of the Haryana FIR with the Delhi FIR to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that a common thread of grievances existed across the FIRs, primarily concerning the failure to hand over possession of flats. It found that the subsequent FIR in Haryana arose from the same set of allegations and transaction as the existing investigation in Delhi.
Issues: Whether the FIRs registered in different jurisdictions pertaining to the same set of transactions should be clubbed, and whether second FIRs for the same occurrence are legally sustainable.
Ratio Decidendi: Following the principle in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, the court ruled that parallel investigations into the same transaction are contrary to the scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure and cause manifest prejudice to the petitioners.
Result: Writ petition partly allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners argued multiplicity of FIRs causes prejudice and double jeopardy; State opposed, citing serious allegations and need for thorough investigation. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 )
3. Court found common thread of grievances across FIRs; civil nature noted in one case; multiplicity causes prejudice; coordination needed. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 )
4. No multiple FIRs for same transaction; single comprehensive investigation with further reports permitted under CrPC scheme. (Para 21 , 24 , 25 )
5. Ordered transfer and clubbing of subsequent FIR with earlier one for coordinated investigation; declined blanket protection against future FIRs. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 )
6. Can multiple FIRs be registered for the same transaction or occurrence?
No. Under the scheme of CrPC, only the first FIR is valid; subsequent information regarding same transaction must be treated as statements under Section 162, not fresh FIRs. (Para 21 , 24 )
7. What remedy is available when multiple FIRs are registered for the same transaction?
The court may order clubbing or transfer of subsequent FIRs to a single investigating agency to ensure coordinated investigation and avoid multiplicity of proceedings. (Para 25 , 27 )
8. Is a court justified in granting a blanket direction against coercive action in future FIRs?
No. Courts should not grant blanket protection against future FIRs; petitioners must avail legal remedies if such FIRs are registered. (Para 28 )
J U D G M E N T
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 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 No. 30/2019 was registered by 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 committing 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 following FIRs have been registered with Economic Offence Wing ('EOW'), New Delhi against the petitioners and other associated with the real estate projects of M/s Krrish Realtech Pvt. Ltd. :-
| S.NO | FIR NO | COMPLAINANT | SUBJECT MATTER OF FIR | POLICE STATION |
| 1 | 52/2016 | M/S IMPERIA STRUCTURES LTD | Related to not delivering the possession of the sold plots nor refunding the amount | EOW,Delhi |
| 2. | 30/2019 | Mr.Atul Aggarwal(Complaints of 83 other victims clubbed) | Related to not delivering the possession of the sold plots nor refunding the amount | EOW,Delhi |
| 3. | 178/2020 | M.K .Jain | Related to of receiving funds from complainant by assuring him to allot plots in project Brahma City and flats in another project in lieu thereof. | EOW,Delhi |
| 4. | 30/2022 | P.K Bindal | Complainant has alleged to have paid sum of Rs.35 crore to the accused in lieu of 42 flats, which were never given to him. | EOW,Delhi |
| 5. | 176/2022 | M.S Piyal puri | Non-Delivery of units in project Monde De provence | EOW,Delhi |
4. However, some other aggrieved victims chose to lodge FIRs at Haryana on almost the same allegations of not delivering the plots and of misappropriating the money paid by homebuyers/ investors by the petitioners. Two FIRs i.e, FIR No. 221/2013 PS Sector 55, 56 Gurgaon and FIR No. 674/2013 PS Gurgaon Sadar were registered against the accused company and its directors at Gurugram in respect of the said project The petitioners and the concerned accused company, however, showing their bonafide, settled the matters with a few homebuyers and refunded the amount and consequently, the said FIRs were quashed.
5. The FIR No. 221/2013 PS Sector 55, 56 Gurgaon was quashed on the basis of settlement between the parties, by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh vide order dated 11.03.2014 passed in CRM-M-40033 of 2013.
6. The FIR No. 674/2013 PS Sadar, Gurgaon was quashed on the basis of settlement between the parties, by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh vide order dated 09.07.2015 passed in CRM-M-36606 of 2013.
7. On 02.05.2016, an FIR No. 52/2016 under Sections 406, 420 and 120B Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered at Economic Offence Wing, Delhi against M/s Brahma City Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Krrish
