Back
Echoes of the Same Fraud: Bars Parallel Probes in Krrish World Homebuyer Saga
In a significant ruling that reinforces procedural discipline in criminal investigations, the has clubbed a fresh FIR registered in Gurugram with an earlier Delhi case, holding that multiple probes into identical allegations constitute an impermissible multiplicity that prejudices the accused.
The Core Dispute Unfolds
Amit Katyal and his co-accused, directors of M/s Krrish Realtech Pvt. Ltd., faced a barrage of FIRs across Delhi and Haryana over the troubled “Brahma City / Krrish World” project. Homebuyers alleged that despite substantial payments, plots and flats were never delivered, with funds allegedly siphoned through shell companies. While the in Delhi had already clubbed 83 complaints into FIR No. 30/2019 and filed a chargesheet, registered FIR No. 439/2024 at Sector-65, Gurugram, on strikingly similar facts.
The petitioners approached the under , seeking transfer and consolidation to avoid being trapped in an endless cycle of investigations and potential arrests.
Arguments from Both Sides
Senior counsel for the Katyals argued that the new Haryana FIR merely recycled the same grievances already under scrutiny in Delhi — non-delivery of units, alleged diversion of funds, and cheating. They highlighted an earlier Delhi FIR (No. 52/2016) which the itself had closed after concluding the dispute was “clearly civil in nature.” Repeated FIRs, they contended, amounted to harassment and violated the spirit of by keeping a “hanging sword” of arrest over their heads.
The State of Haryana countered vigorously. It pointed to the scale of the alleged fraud affecting hundreds of innocent homebuyers across states and the need to trace complex money trails involving multiple shell companies. A had already been constituted and was conducting an extensive probe, which could not be curtailed merely because had acted first.
Judicial Reasoning and Precedent
The bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B. Varale placed heavy reliance on the landmark T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala (2001). There, the Court had held that the scheme of the contemplates only one FIR per cognizable occurrence or transaction. Subsequent information, even if revealing additional offences, does not justify a fresh FIR; it must be treated as under .
The Court found that both the Delhi and Haryana FIRs stemmed from the same core transaction: inducement of homebuyers to invest in the project followed by non-delivery of promised units. Allowing in different jurisdictions would invite and .
fairly conceded it had no objection to consolidation. Haryana, while opposing, acknowledged the overlap.
Key Observations
The judgment contains several telling passages that crystallise the legal position:
“there cannot be multiple FIRs in respect of the same occurrence or transaction giving rise to . The scheme of the postulates a single, comprehensive investigation, with liberty to the investigating agency to conduct and file , rather than permitting parallel and overlapping investigations in different fora.”
The Court further observed:
“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, and to the petitioners.”
Most directly addressing the present facts:
“the subsequent FIR bearing No. 439/2024 registered at , Gurugram, Haryana arises out of the same set of allegations and forms part of the which is already the subject matter of FIR No. 30/2019 registered at the , Delhi.”
The Final Order and Its Reach
The Court partly allowed the petition. FIR No. 439/2024 stood transferred and clubbed with the Delhi EOW case for investigation by a single agency. However, it declined the broader prayer for a blanket restraint on future FIRs, clarifying that petitioners could still approach appropriate forums if new complaints surfaced on the .
The ruling sends a clear message to investigating agencies: once a comprehensive FIR capturing the entire transaction has been registered and investigated, subsequent complaints must feed into that investigation rather than spawn fresh cases. For real estate fraud cases spanning multiple states, this judgment offers a practical template for consolidation, protecting both victims’ interests in thorough investigation and the accused’s right to a coherent defence.
(Information from contemporaneous reporting has been used to contextualise the scale of complaints already clubbed in the Delhi FIR and the constitution of the Haryana SIT.)
