When Several FIRs Arise From the Same Real Estate Transaction, They Should Be Clubbed to Avoid Parallel Investigations and Prejudice to the Accused
Case Name: Amit Katyal & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Anr.
Citation: 2026 INSC 509
Date of Judgment/Order: 18 May 2026
Bench: Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale
Held: The Supreme Court held that where multiple FIRs arise out of the same occurrence, same transaction, or substantially the same set of allegations, parallel investigations in different jurisdictions should not be permitted, as the criminal procedure framework contemplates one comprehensive investigation with liberty to conduct further investigation and file supplementary reports. Relying on the principle in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala and subsequent decisions, the Court held that repeated FIRs on the same transaction may cause multiplicity of proceedings, conflicting findings, and serious prejudice to the accused, and therefore such FIRs can be clubbed or transferred to ensure a coordinated and effective investigation.
Summary: The petitioners, former directors of M/s Krrish Realtech Pvt. Ltd., approached the Supreme Court under Article 32 seeking clubbing and transfer of multiple FIRs registered in Delhi and Haryana concerning the real estate project “Brahma City/Krrish World”. The allegations in the FIRs broadly concerned non-delivery of plots or flats to homebuyers, alleged cheating, diversion of funds, and misappropriation of amounts collected from allottees. FIR No. 30/2019 registered by the Economic Offences Wing, Delhi had already clubbed complaints of several homebuyers and investigation/trial had proceeded in relation to the same project. A later FIR No. 439/2024 was registered at Police Station Sector-65, Gurugram, Haryana on substantially similar allegations. The petitioners argued that multiple FIRs in different jurisdictions on the same transaction caused prejudice and exposed them to repeated coercive action. The State of Haryana opposed the petition on the ground that serious allegations were involved and an SIT had conducted extensive investigation, while the Delhi Police stated that it had no objection if one agency investigated the matter. The Supreme Court found a common thread in the allegations and held that allowing parallel investigations on the same facts would be contrary to the settled law against multiple FIRs for the same transaction.
Decision: The Supreme Court partly allowed the writ petition and directed that FIR No. 30/2019 registered at PS Economic Offences Wing, Delhi shall stand transferred and clubbed with FIR No. 439/2024 registered at PS Sector-65, Gurugram, Haryana, to be investigated in accordance with law. However, the Court declined the petitioners’ prayer for a blanket direction restraining coercive steps in respect of future FIRs, holding that such a general protection could not be granted. The Court clarified that if any future FIR is registered on the basis of the same transaction, the petitioners would be at liberty to avail remedies available in law. Pending applications were disposed of, with no order as to costs.