Recently, the Supreme Court examined whether multiple FIRs relating to the same real estate project and identical allegations could continue simultaneously in different States. The matter involved allegations that homebuyers were induced to invest huge sums in a housing project but were neither given possession nor refunds.
Brief Facts :
The case arose from criminal proceedings against the directors of a real estate company concerning a stalled housing project. Homebuyers alleged that despite making substantial payments for plots and flats, possession was never handed over and the funds were allegedly diverted elsewhere. Multiple FIRs were registered in Delhi and Haryana under Sections 406, 409, 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 on allegations of cheating, criminal breach of trust and conspiracy.
Contentions of the Appellants :
Thecounsel for the Appellants argued that the FIRs registered in different States were based on the same transaction and allegations connected to one project. The counsel contended that one FIR had already clubbed complaints of numerous homebuyers and therefore the later FIR amounted to a second FIR for the same occurrence. It was further argued that the dispute was essentially civil in nature and that multiple investigations were causing serious prejudice and repeated threats of coercive action.
Contentions of the Respondents :
The counsel for the Respondents contended that the allegations involved large-scale cheating of innocent homebuyers and required a detailed investigation across different States. It was argued that the investigating agencies needed to trace the alleged diversion and siphoning of funds through various companies and projects, for which a comprehensive probe by a Special Investigation Team was necessary.
Observation of the Court:
The Supreme Court observed that the FIRs registered in Delhi and Haryana were rooted in the same housing project and substantially similar allegations raised by homebuyers regarding non-delivery of plots and diversion of funds. The Court noted that the law does not permit multiple FIRs concerning the same transaction and warned that parallel investigations would create conflicting findings and serious prejudice to the accused. In this regard, the Court stated that “there cannot be multiple FIRs in respect of the same occurrence or transaction giving rise to cognizable offences.”
The Court further emphasised that “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.”
Decision of the court :
The Supreme Court directed that the FIR registered in Delhi be transferred and clubbed with the FIR registered in Gurugram for a consolidated investigation, while declining to grant blanket protection against future FIRs.
Case Title: Amit Katyal & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Anr.
Case No.: Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 67 of 2025
Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 399 SC
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Mithal and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Prasanna B. Varale
Advocate for the Appellant: Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv., Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Sr. Adv.
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. S.V. Raju, ASG, Mrs. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG
