2026 INSC 509 1

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CRL.) NO. OF 67/2025

AMIT KATYAL & ANR. …. PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA & ANR. …..RESPONDENT (S)

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

to enable the petitioners to effectively defend themselves in the

criminal proceedings. The facts leading to this Writ petition is thus:

2

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

EOW,Delhi

3

the sold

plots nor

refunding

the amount

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

4

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 Realtech Pvt. Ltd. pertaining to the project 'Brahma City' on

the allegations that an Agreement/MoU was entered into by the

accused company with the complainant M/s Imperia Structures

Ltd. to allot plots in the said project and had even obtained the

5

money despite the fact that there were no plots available with the

accused company for allotment.

8. On 07.03.2019, another FIR being FIR No. 30/2019 under

Sections 409, 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 Realtech Pvt. Ltd. on various

allegations pertaining to the project Brahma City. The complaints

received by as many as 83 home-buyers were clubbed with the said

FIR and were investigated by the Economic Offence Wing of the

Delhi Police.

9. On 18.04.2019, it was submitted by Investigating Agency

from the investigation conducted by the Agency, it is revealed that

there was no element of any misrepresentation or concealment.

The transactions between the parties, were clearly civil in nature

and no criminal act of inducement or misrepresentation and

concealment could be established against the alleged accused

persons and a Final Report (cancellation) was filed in respect of

FIR No. 52 of 2016, PS EOW, Distt. EOW(South), before the court

of Ld. CMM (New Delhi District), Patiala House Courts and

consigned the same to record.

10. On 06.11.2020, another FIR No. 178/2020 under Sections

406, 420 and 120B Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered at

Economic Offence Wing, Delhi against M/s Krrish Realtech Pvt.

Ltd., petitioners Amit Katyal, and others on the allegations of

6

cheating by inducing the complainant to invest and pay money to

the accused persons by inter-alia offering 15-plots in the project

'Brahma City'. It was alleged that no such allotment was made or

was legally permissible and the amount paid to the accused was

not refunded.

11. On 17.02.2022, another FIR No. 30/2022 under Sections

406, 420 and 120B Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered at

Economic Offence Wing, Delhi against petitioners Amit Katyal and

Rajesh Katyal, M/s Angle Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and others on

the allegations that the accused had induced the complainant to

pay a sum of Rs.35 crore in lieu of 42 flats in Project Florance

Estate, Sector 70, Gurguram, which were never given to him nor

money was refunded.

12. On 19.05.2022, a Final Report / Charge -sheet was filed

against the petitioners Amit Katyal and other accused in which it

was stated that the accused persons had cheated the homebuyers

and had misappropriated the amount received from them in

various holding companies. Complaint received from 83 victims

were clubbed and investigated and after investigation, report was

filed before the jurisdictional court to the effect that the accused

persons had prima -facie committed offence under Section

406/420/120-B IPC. The investigation was kept pending on other

aspects. The Ld. Trial Court has since taken cognizance and the

trial is pending.

7

13. On 14.12.2022, another FIR being FIR No. 176/2022 under

Sections 406, 420 and 120B Indian Penal Code, 1860 was

registered at Economic Offence Wing, Delhi against petitioners

Amit Katyal, M/s Krrish Realty Nirman Pvt. Ltd. and others on the

allegations that the accused had induced the complainant to book

flats in their project 'De Provence' at Gwal Pahari, Gurugram but

had failed to complete the project and to handover the possession

thereof despite complete payment made to the accused.

14. The matter reached this Hon'ble Court in SLP(C) No. 6013 Of

2022 filed by M/s. Krrish Realtech Pvt. Ltd. after the concerned

authorities had cancelled the development license and had

restrained M/s Krrish Realtech Pvt. Ltd. to create third party rights

in the subject land and the Hon'ble High Court did not granted

interim relief in Writ Petition filed against the same by M/s Krrish

Realtech Pvt. Ltd. This Hon'ble Court was pleased to appoint

Hon'ble Ms. Justice Gita Mittal as a Referee to prepare a

comprehensive chart with details of all the allottees in the project

Brahma City with status as to their allotment, payment status,

area, etc. The petitioners are not reproducing the proceedings in

the said petition before this Hon'ble Court, in view of the narrow

scope of the present writ petition. However, in view of the above,

the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in a writ petition filed by M/s Krrish

Realtech Pvt. Ltd. directed the respondents to maintain status-quo

taking note of the fact that one Charge Sheet has already been

filed, but the supplementary Charge Sheet in respect of other

victims is yet to be filed. On 18.10.2024, the petitioner Rajesh

Katyal was arrested by the Directorate of Enforcement, which had

8

registered an ECIR/GNZO/04/2023 on the basis of multiple FIRs

against the petitioners. The grounds for arrest furnished to the

petitioners also revealed that the same were based on the predicate

offences in various FIRs registered against the petitioners. on

19.10.2024, the summoning order vide which accused were

summoned to face the trial by the trial court in the proceedings

arising out of FIR No. 30/2022 PS EOW was set aside in revision

by the Ld. ASJ, South District, Saket Court, New Delhi. The

petitioner Rajesh Katyal was granted bail on 14.11.2024, yet

another FIR i.e. FIR No. 439/2024 was registered on 21.12.2024

at PS Sector-65, Gurugram, Haryana and the petitioners yet again

are facing threats of being arrested in the said FIR. The said FIR is

also on primarily the same allegations that the petitioners had

duped the homebuyers and have misappropriated the said amount

by diverting it through various shell companies. It is pertinent to

state that the said allegations also form subject matter of the FIR

No. 30/2019 PS EOW, Delhi which also pertains to cheating of the

homebuyers of the same project. It is submitted that severe

prejudice is being caused to the petitioners on account of repeated

FIRs across two states by different investigating agencies

pertaining to the same allegations pertaining to the same project.

The FIR No. 439/2024 registered subsequently at PS Gurugram,

Haryana also refers to the earlier FIR being investigated by the

EOW, Delhi in which main chargesheet has already been filed. The

petitioner Amit Katyal is in judicial custody at present in some

other FIR. Hence the petitioner filed this Writ petition with

following prayer (A) clubbing / transferring of F.I.R No. 439/2024,

PS, Sector-65, Gurugram, Haryana with FIR NO.30/2019, PS.

9

Economic Offence wing, Delhi or transferring it to any appropriate

Investigating Agency/Court in the State of Delhi as deemed fit by

this Hon'ble Court. (B) To further direct that no coercive action

against the Petitioners be taken in respect of any FIRs which may

be registered in future on the basis of the same transactions i.e.,

transactions pertaining to allotment of plots in the Project 'Brahma

City' / 'Krish World' by M/s. Krrish Realtech Private Limited.

CONTENTIONS

15. Learned senior Counsel for the petitioners contended that

several FIRs have been registered in Delhi (EOW) and Haryana

based on the same real estate project (“Brahma City / Krrish

World”). FIR No. 30/2019 (EOW Delhi) already clubbed complaints

of 83 homebuyers and is under investigation/trial. Subsequent

FIR (No. 439/2024, Gurugram) is based on identical allegations

such as cheating, non-delivery of the plots/flats to the respective

home buyers, siphoning of the amount paid by the home

buyers/transferring the said amount to other companies, and/or

diverting the amounts in other projects. Learned senior counsel for

the Petitioner further submitted that at the most, the Petitioner

could have been fastened with the civil liability for an alleged

breach of agreement. In support of his submission, learned

counsel further submitted the final report in one of the cases

namely, FIR NO. 52/2016. The Investigating Agency i.e. the

Economic Offences Wing, Delhi Police, submitted that the

transactions between the parties were clearly civil in nature and

10

the Agency was unable to find any criminal act being committed

by the Petitioners for the alleged offences.

16. Learned senior counsel further submitted that lodgement of

multiple FIRs at different places causes serious prejudice to the

petitioners and the same would amount to an act of double

jeopardy against the petitioners and there would be a consistent

hanging sword of coercive action against the petitioners, namely

effecting his arrest.

17. Mr. S.V. Raju, learned ASG representing the State of Haryana

while opposing the petition submits that there are serious

allegations against the petitioners. The scope of alleged misdeeds

by the petitioners is not limited only to one State but the offences

are committed in different States. Petitioners have cheated a large

number of innocent homebuyers who have invested their entire

earnings in these projects with a hope of shelter. Considering the

nature and scope of offences, the Investigating Agency will have to

undertake an exercise of thorough investigation. Considering the

accusations against the petitioners of siphoning the amount and

transferring the amount in other projects, the Investigating Agency

will have to unearth the trail of money. Considering the serious

allegations against the petitioners, the Haryana State Police

constituted the Special Investigation Team (SIT) and the same has

carried out the extensive investigation.

11

18. Mrs. Aishwarya Bhati, learned ASG submitted that pursuant

to the FIR registered in Delhi, the Delhi Police undertook the

exercise of investigation and was under the process of

investigation. It is further submitted that as the Petitioners have

approached the Court and certain interim orders in the nature of

restraining the Agency from taking coercive steps were passed

against the Petitioners, Delhi Police could not proceed with further

investigation.

19. Mrs. Bhati, in her usual fairness submitted that without

prejudice to the rights of Delhi Police, Delhi Police is having no

objection if the investigation is conducted through one Agency as

this Court deem fit.

ANALYSIS

20. We have carefully considered the submissions advanced by

learned Counsels. The question that falls for our consideration is

whether the FIRs should be clubbed or not ?

21. This Court in T.T Antony vs State of Kerala

1 held thus:

“18. An information given under sub-section

(1) of Section 154 CrPC is commonly known as

first information report (FIR) though this term is

not used in the Code. It is a very important

document. And as its nickname suggests it is the

earliest and the first information of a cognizable

1

(2001) 6 SCC181

12

offence recorded by an officer in charge of a police

station. It sets the criminal law in motion and

marks the commencement of the investigation

which ends up with the formation of opinion

under Section 169 or 170 CrPC, as the case may

be, and forwarding of a police report under

Section 173 CrPC. It is quite possible and it

happens not infrequently that more informations

than one are given to a police officer in charge of

a police station in respect of the same incident

involving one or more than one cogniz able

offences. In such a case he need not enter every

one of them in the station house diary and this is

implied in Section 154 CrPC. Apart from a vague

information by a phone call or a cryptic telegram,

the information first entered in the station house

diary, kept for this purpose, by a police officer in

charge of a police station is the first information

report FIR postulated by Section 154 CrPC. All

other informations made orally or in writing after

the commencement of the investigation into the

cognizable offence disclosed from the facts

mentioned in the first information report and

entered in the station house diary by the police

officer or such other cognizable offences as may

come to his notice during the investigation, will

be statements falling under Section 162 CrPC. No

such information/statement can properly be

treated as an FIR and entered in the station

house diary again, as it would in effect be a

13

second FIR and the same cannot be in conformity

with the scheme of CrPC. Take a case where an

FIR mentions cognizable offence under Section

307 or 326 IPC and investigating agency learns

during the investigation or receives fresh

information that the victim died, no fresh FIR

under Section 302 IPC need be registered which

will be irregular; in such a case alteration of the

provision of law in the first FIR is the proper

course to adopt. Let us consider a different

situation in which // having killed W, his wife,

informs the police that she is killed by an

unknown person or knowing that W is killed by

his mother or sister, H owns up the responsibility

and during investigation the truth is detected; it

does not require filing of fresh IIR against H the

real offender who can be arraigned in the report

under Section 173(2) or 173(8) CrPC, as the case

may be. It is of course permissible for the

investigating officer to send up a report to the

Magistrate concerned even earlier that

investigation is being directed against the person

suspected to be the accused”.

“19 The scheme of CrPC is that an officer in

charge of a police station has to commence

investigation as provided in Section 156 or 157

CrPC on the basis of entry of the first information

report, on coming to know of the commission of a

cognizable offence. On completion of investigation

and on the basis of the evidence collected, he has

14

to form an opinion under Section 169 or 170

CrPC, as the case may be, and forward his report

to the Magistrate concerned under Section 173(2)

CrPC. However, even after filing such a report, if

he comes into possession of further information

or material, he need not register a fresh FIR; he is

empowered to make further investigation,

normally with the leave of the court, and where

during further investigation he collects further

evidence, oral or documentary, he is obliged to

forward the same with one or mor e further

reports; this is the import of sub-section (8) of

Section 173 CrPC”.

“20. From the above discussion it follows that

under the scheme of the provisions of Sections

154, 155, 156, 157, 162, 169, 170 and 173 CrPC

only the earliest or the first information in regard

to the commission of a cognizable offence satisfies

the requirements of Section 154 CrPC. Thus there

can be no second FIR and consequently there can

be no fresh investigation on receipt of every

subsequent information in respect of the same

cognizable offence or the same occurrence or

incident giving rise to one or more cognizable

offences. On receipt of information about a

cognizable offence or an incident giving rise to a

cognizable offence or offences and on entering the

PIR in the station house diary, the officer in

charge of a police station has to investigate not

15

merely the cognizable offenee reported in the PIR

but also other connected offences found to have

been committed in the course of the same

transaction or the same occurrence and file one

or more reports as provided in Section 173 CrPC”.

22. Further this court in Arnab Goswami vs Union of India

2,

Amish Devgan vs Union of India

3 and Mohd.zubair vs NCT

Delhi

4 reaffirmed the above legal proposition.

CONCLUSION

23. The material produced before us show that though the FIRs

were registered at various places i.e. some in Delhi and some in

Haryana, a common thread in the nature of grievances raised by

the complainants, who are primarily homebuyers, that in spite of

an assurance given by the petitioners and money accepted by the

petitioners, the petitioners failed to hand over the possession of

flats to the respective homebuyers. Insofar as the allegation in

respect of transfer of money is concerned, it is only in the FIR

complaint registered at Haryana and as certain properties are

situated in State of Haryana, the Enforcement Directorate entered

in the scene. Admittedly, in one of the FIR registered in New Delhi

namely, FIR No. 52 of 2016, though there were allegations of

common offences under Section 406/420 and 120 IPC against the

petitioners, the final report submitted by the Investigating Agency

i.e. the Economic Offences Wing submitted that the transactions

2

(2020)14 SCC 12

3

(2021) 1 SCC 1

4

(2023) 16 SCC 764

16

between the parties were clearly civil in nature and no

inducement/misrepresentation/concealment could be

established. There is also some merit in the submissions of the

learned senior counsel for the Petitioners that the multiplicity of

the offences registered at various places would cause some

prejudice to the Petitioners. It is submitted by Mr. Raju that

considering the nature of allegations, the Haryana Police

constituted SIT and an extensive investigation is carried out by the

Haryana Police. Mrs. Bhati submitted that Delhi Police is having

no objection if the investigation is carried out by Haryana Police.

24. In such a situation, the principle laid down in T.T. Antony v.

State of Kerala (Supra), as consistently reaffirmed in subsequent

decisions of this Court, squarely applies, inasmuch as there

cannot be multiple FIRs in respect of the same occurrence or

transaction giving rise to cognizable offences. The scheme of the

Code of Criminal Procedure postulates a single, comprehensive

investigation, with liberty to the investigating agency to conduct

further investigation and file supplementary reports, rather than

permitting parallel and overlapping investigations in different

fora.

25. 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. At the same time, consolidation of

17

such FIRs at one place would subserve the ends of justice by

ensuring a coordinated, effective and complete investigation,

while also safeguarding the right of the petitioners to mount an

effective and meaningful defence in a singular proceeding.

26. This Court is of the considered opinion that the subsequent

FIR bearing No. 439/2024 registered at Police Station Sector-65,

Gurugram, Haryana arises out of the same set of allegations and

forms part of the same transaction which is already the subject

matter of FIR No. 30/2019 registered at the Economic Offences

Wing, Delhi. Permitting parallel investigations in such

circumstances would not only be contrary to the scheme of the

Code of Criminal Procedure but would also result in manifest

prejudice to the petitioners and multiplicity of proceedings.

27. Accordingly, prayer (A) deserves to be allowed, and it is

directed that FIR No. 30/2019, PS Economic Offences Wing,

Delhi, shall stand transferred and clubbed with FIR No.

439/2024, PS Sector-65, Gurugram, Haryana to be investigated

in accordance with law.

28. So far as prayer (B) is concerned, the same is declined. It is

neither appropriate nor permissible for this Court to grant a

blanket direction restraining coercive steps in respect of future

FIRs. However, it is clarified that in the event of any such FIR is

registered on the basis of the same transaction, it shall be open to

the petitioners to avail such remedies as may be available to them

in law.

18

29. The writ petition is accordingly partly allowed in the

aforesaid terms. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed

of. No costs as to order.

........................................J.

[PANKAJ MITHAL]

.........................................J.

[PRASANNA B. VARALE]

NEW DELHI;

MAY 18, 2026.