IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGA RH

CRWP-3145-2026 (O&M)

Reserved On: 08.05.2026

Date of decision: 13.05.2026

DHRUV DUTT SHARMA

...Petitioner

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

...Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA

PRESENT:

Mr. R.S.Rai, Senior Advocate,(through VC) and

Mr. A.P.S. Deol, Senior Advocate with

Mr. Sumer Singh Boparai, Advocate

Mr. Prabhav Ralli, Advocate

Mr. Himmat Deol, Advocate

Mr. Sirhaan Seth, Advocate

Mr. Surya Partap Singh, Advocate

Mr. Ankit Jangra, Advocate

Mr. Jasmeet Singh Kang, Advocate

Mr. Samraat Saxena, Advocate; Mr. Karan Kalia, Advocate &

Mrs. Sagarika, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Satbir Singh Goripuria, DAG, Haryana.

None for Respondent No. 2 & 3

Mr. Manish Jain, Senior Advocate,

with Mr. Siddhant Jain, Advocate

Mr. Manan Jain, Advocate, and

Mr. Bharat Mani Goyal for respondent no.4.

Mr. Sunil Panwar, Senior Advocate,

with Mr. Dhruv Singh, Advocate, &

Ms. Tejaswini, Advocate for respondent no.5.

Mr. Ketan Garg, Advocate for

Mr. Vishal R. Lamba, Advocate, for respondent no.6.

Mr Sahej Mahajan, Advocate,

and Mr. Suryansh Vashisth, Advocate,

for applicant in CRM-W-595-2026.

Mr. S.K. Bishnoi, Advocate,

and Mr. Rohit Kalra, Advocate,

for applicant-respondent in CRM-W-565-2026.

Mr. Dixit Garg, Advocate,

for applicant/Intervener in CRM-W-630-2026.

****

CRWP-3145-2026 (O&M)

2

SUBHAS MEHLA, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the BNSS, seeking issuance of

directions for consolidation of FIR No.263/2025 dated 20.12.2025 registered

under Sections 120-B, 409, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC at Police Station Civil

Lines, Gurugram; FIR No.0001/2026 dated 01.01.2026 registered under

Sections 120-B and 420 IPC at Police Station Civil Lines, Gurugram; FIR

No.0002/2026 dated 02.01.2026 registered under Sections 120-B and 420 IPC

at Police Station Civil Lines, Gurugram; and FIR No.0040/2026 dated

05.02.2026 registered under Sections 316(5), 318(4) and 61 of the BNS at

Police Station Civil Lines, Gurugram, with FIR No.262/2025 registered under

Sections 120-B, 409 and 420 IPC at Police Station Civil Lines, Gurugram

(hereinafter referred to as the “Parent FIR”).

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

2. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner

submitted that the petitioner is a reputed businessman and entrepreneur having

an established standing in society and is associated with the “32nd Avenue” /

“32nd Milestone Complex” situated at Sector-15, Part-II, Gurugram. It was

contended that criminal proceedings came to be initiated against the petitioner

at the instance of one Mr. Madan Lal Sharma, resulting in registration of FIR

No.262/2025 i.e. the Parent FIR, primarily on allegations pertaining to non-

payment of assured rent, though according to the petitioner, such rent had

initially been paid regularly for a period of one to two years. It was further

submitted that thereafter, four additional FIRs came to be registered at the

same Police Station on substantially similar allegations concerning units

CRWP-3145-2026 (O&M)

3

situated in the same project/property. Learned senior counsel argued that the

disputes raised by the complainants are essentially civil in nature, arising out

of landlord-tenant/investor arrangements, for which the appropriate remedy

lay before the authorities constituted under RERA, and that the complainants

have wrongly sought to give a criminal colour to the dispute by setting the

criminal law into motion. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner argued, that

the registration of multiple FIRs in relation to the same project amounts to

misuse of State machinery and abuse of the process of law. Learned senior

counsel further apprised this Court that vide order dated 19.03.2026, this Court

had directed that except for the Parent FIR, the State shall not proceed in the

remaining FIRs till the next date of hearing, and the same interim protection

was thereafter continued vide orders dated 08.04.2026 and 28.04.2026.

Despite the aforesaid orders, the State proceeded to present challan against the

petitioner in FIR No.0002/2026 dated 02.01.2026 registered under Sections

120-B and 420 IPC at Police Station Civil Lines, Gurugram. It was further

contended that registration of subsequent FIRs on substantially the same

allegations in relation to the same project/property i.e. “32nd Avenue”, is

legally impermissible and liable to be treated as an abuse of process of law. In

support of the aforesaid submissions, reliance was placed upon Ashish Bhalla

v. State of Haryana, CRM-M-17130-2025 (O&M), decided by this Court on

22.08.2025, wherein consolidation of multiple FIRs pertaining to a

development project had been ordered. Reliance was also placed upon T.T.

Antony v. State of Kerela, (2001) 6 SCC 181; State (NCT) of Delhi v. Khimji

Bhai Jadeja, 2026 SCC Online SC 19; Alok Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2025

SCC Online SC 1728; Ravinder Singh Sidhu v. State of Punjab, 2025 SCC

CRWP-3145-2026 (O&M)

4

Online SC 1164; Satinder Singh Bhasin v. State of U.P., (2023) 14 SCC 1164;

and Abhishek Singh Chauhan v. Union of India, 2022 SCC Online SCC

1936.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF STATE/RESPONDENT NO.1

3. Learned State Counsel vehemently opposed the submissions

advanced on behalf of the petitioner and contended that the FIRs in question

do not warrant consolidation, as each FIR pertains to distinct allegations of

fraud and cheating, involving separate complainants/investors, different

transactions, and independent causes of action. It was submitted that the only

commonality amongst the FIRs is that the complainants were investors in the

‘32nd Avenue’ project and the petitioner, along with his co-accused, figures as

an accused in each of the FIRs. However, each FIR discloses separate offences

committed at different points of time, involving different representations,

distinct factual foundations, and varying modes and manners of commission

of the alleged crimes. Reliance was placed upon State of Punjab v. Rajesh

Syal, (2002) 8 SCC 158,

to contend that distinct offences arising out of

separate transactions cannot be artificially amalgamated merely because some

parties or surrounding circumstances may overlap.

4. Learned state counsel further submitted that in each of the

FIRs, similarly placed victims have been joined in the investigation, and no

separate FIRs have been registered with regard to them. It was further argued

that the present petition has been instituted on vague and untenable grounds

solely with a view to obstruct and derail the ongoing investigations and to

evade criminal liability arising out of separate offences committed by the

petitioner. Accordingly, prayer was made for dismissal of the present petition.

CRWP-3145-2026 (O&M)

5

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO.4

5. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondent

No.4, i.e. the complainant in FIR No.0001/2026 dated 01.01.2026 registered

under Sections 120-B and 420 IPC at Police Station Civil Lines, Gurugram,

opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and contended

that the allegations contained in FIR No.0001/2026 disclose a cause of action

entirely distinct from the Parent FIR. It was submitted that respondent No.4

has independent grievances against the petitioner and the co-accused, founded

upon a separate set of transactions, representations and documents, and that

consolidation of the FIRs would seriously prejudice the rights and interests of

the complainants.

6. Learned counsel argued that although the accused persons and

the project/property in question may be common, each FIR nevertheless

reveals a different pattern and modus adopted to allegedly cheat investors over

a period of time. According to the respondent, the cases do not arise out of one

singular scheme or one composite transaction where multiple investors were

induced through identical representations; rather, each FIR pertains to distinct

acts of alleged cheating and criminal breach of trust committed through

different methods and under varying factual circumstances. It was further

submitted that if all FIRs are consolidated, the investigating agency as well as

the concerned Courts may be deprived of the opportunity to independently

examine the peculiarities and intricacies involved in each set of allegations.

7. Learned counsel further contended that as pointed out by the

learned State Counsel, complainants having substantially similar allegations

CRWP-3145-2026 (O&M)

6

and alleging similar modus operandi have already been associated in the

respective FIRs during the course of investigation itself, and therefore, there

exists no justification for clubbing distinct FIRs involving separate

transactions. It was argued that mere recording of statements of other

complainants under Section 161 Cr.P.C. would not sufficiently address the

independent nature of the allegations levelled in each case.

8. It was also submitted that while the Parent FIR primarily

concerns alleged deficiencies arising out of a leasing arrangement qua a

particular allottee, FIR No.0001/2026 pertains to allegations of a broader

financial fraud involving multiple investors, alleg ed

diversion/misappropriation of funds, and creation of third-party rights in

respect of the units in question. Hence, according to learned counsel, the

allegations cannot be treated as forming part of the “same transaction” so as

to justify consolidation of the FIRs. In support of the aforesaid submissions,

reliance was placed upon Anju Chaudhary v. State of UP, (2013) 6 SCC 384,

and State of Rajasthan v. Surendra Singh Rathore, 2025 SCC Online 358.

Learned senior counsel further submitted that consolidation of the FIRs would

seriously prejudice the complainants by shielding the petitioner and the co-

accused from being independently investigated for separate and distinct acts

of cheating and criminal breach of trust allegedly committed against different

investors, and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the present writ petition.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO.5

9. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondent

No.5, i.e. the complainant in FIR No.0002/2026 dated 02.01.2026 registered

under Sections 120-B and 420 IPC at Police Station Civil Lines, Gurugram,

CRWP-3145-2026 (O&M)

7

contended that the present petition is misconceived, factually misleading, and

wholly untenable in law. It was submitted that FIR No.0002/2026 discloses a

distinct and independent cause of action and therefore does not warrant

consolidation with the Parent FIR. According to learned counsel, such

consolidation would seriously hamper a fair and effective investigation into

the specific allegations levelled therein.

10. Learned senior counsel submitted that as per the allegations in

FIR No.0002/2026, the accused persons represented to respondent No.5 that

the unit proposed to be sold was free from encumbrances and capable of being

lawfully transferred in his favour. Acting upon such representations,

respondent No.5 allegedly paid a total sale consideration of Rs.2,50,00,000/-

(Rupees Two Crore and Fifty Lakh only), pursuant to which Agreement to Sell

bearing Vasika No.8365 dated 17.09.2021 came to be executed and registered

at Tehsil Wazirabad, Gurugram. Despite receipt of the entire sale

consideration, the accused persons allegedly failed to execute the

sale/conveyance deed in favour of the complainant in terms of the agreement,

while repeated requests, reminders and even legal notice issued by respondent

No.5 went unheeded.

11. It was further submitted that upon subsequent enquiry and

media reports concerning the alleged fraud committed by the accused persons,

respondent No.5 discovered that the very same unit, which had allegedly been

agreed to be sold to him, had thereafter been subdivided into 44 smaller units

and transferred to multiple third parties through separate sale deeds executed

for an aggregate sale consideration of approximately Rs.13,54,58,000/-

(Rupees Thirteen Crore Fifty-Four Lakh and Fifty-Eight Thousand only).

CRWP-3145-2026 (O&M)

8

Learned senior counsel thus argued that the modus allegedly adopted in FIR

No.0002/2026 is entirely different and distinguishable from the allegations

contained in the Parent FIR, and the dispute cannot be trivialised as a mere

landlord-tenant disagreement, as sought to be projected on behalf of the

petitioner.

12. Learned senior counsel further contended that the present

petition is a calculated attempt to dilute serious criminal allegations, obstruct

a lawful investigation, and cloak criminal liability under the guise of a civil

dispute by way of selective and misleading presentation of facts. Accordingly,

prayer was made for dismissal of the present petition with exemplary costs.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO.6

13. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent

No.6, i.e. the complainant in FIR No.40 dated 05.02.2026 registered under

Sections 316(5), 318(4) and 61 of the BNS, opposed the submissions advanced

on behalf of the petitioner and contended that consolidation of FIR No.40 with

the Parent FIR would result in serious prejudice to the complainant/respondent

no.6 and defeat the ends of justice. It was submitted that the allegations

contained in FIR No.40 are wholly distinct, independent and unconnected with

the allegations forming subject matter of the Parent FIR. According to learned

counsel, while the Parent FIR essentially pertains to disputes arising out of an

alleged leasing/rental arrangement, FIR No.40 discloses a separate and distinct

mode of alleged cheating adopted against the complainant. Learned counsel

submitted that the complainant, through his HUF namely “Ramender Mall and

Sons”, allegedly invested a sum of Rs.45,00,000/- (Rupees Forty-Five Lakh

only) towards purchase of Unit No. U8-70 measuring 50 sq. ft., with an

CRWP-3145-2026 (O&M)

9

assurance of monthly rental income of Rs.30,000/-. Despite payment of the

entire sale consideration along with stamp duty and other charges, the

conveyance deed was never executed in favour of the complainant. It was

further submitted that owing to continued non-execution of the conveyance

deed, the complainant demanded refund of the amount paid, whereupon the

accused persons allegedly assured return of the amount within a period of 30

to 45 days, which assurance too was never fulfilled.

14. Learned Senior Counsel further contended that the unit

purportedly agreed to be sold to the complainant had been represented as free

from encumbrances, whereas it subsequently came to light that the same stood

mortgaged with Union Bank of India. On the aforesaid basis, it was argued

that the allegations in FIR No.40 disclose a separate and independent act of

alleged cheating requiring an independent investigation, and cannot be treated

as part of the same transaction forming subject matter of the Parent FIR or the

other FIRs registered against the petitioner in relation to the same project.

SECOND SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

15. Learned counsel for the petitioner lastly submitted that in so

far as FIR No.0002/2026 is concerned, wherein challan has already been

presented by the investigating agency, the petitioner has no objection if the

said FIR is treated independently and is not consolidated with the Parent FIR.

OBSERVATIONS

16. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the paper-book with their able assistance.

17. The principal question which arises for consideration before

this Court is whether the FIRs in question arise out of the “same transaction”,

CRWP-3145-2026 (O&M)

10

or disclose substantially overlapping allegations, so as to justify consolidation

thereof in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

read with Section 528 of the BNSS.

18. To consider this question, it is essential to first analyse the

allegations levelled against the accused persons, including the petitioner in

different FIRs:

CHART OF ALLEGATIONS AS PER CONTENTIONS OF THE LEAR NED

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES, THEIR PLEADINGS, AS WELL AS RE PLY

FILED BY THE STATE:

S.NO. FIR NO. SECTIONS ALLEGATIONS

1. FIR No. 262

of 2025

Parent FIR

Resp No. 2

Sections 120-

B, 409 & 420

of IPC

Respondent No.2’s son was lured to invest

and purchase commercial unit no. G-10,

(271 sq. dt. as per Conveyance Deed) by co-

accused Anubhav Sharma on the assurance

that the same would be leased out to M/s

Growth Hospitality LLP, and a fixed rental

income of Rs. 500/- per sq. ft. would accrue

to him.

grievances:

i. Lesser area conveyed than what

was represented to his son at the

time of sale of the unit, thereby

causing financial loss to them.

ii. Failure to deliver possession of

the commercial unit.

iii. Failure to pay lease rentals

arising out of lease arrangement

after June 2025.

iv. M/s Growth Hospitality LLP was

run by petitioner, i.e. son of

accused Anubhav Sharma, and

TDS was deducted from the rent

paid to the complainant,

however, no Form 16A was

issued to them, thereby causing

financial loss.

2. FIR

No.0001/2026

Resp No. 4

Sections 120-

B & 420 IPC

Cause of action arising out of a series of

transactions spanning over considerable

period of time since 2011-12:

i. Failure to deliver possession

ii. Failure to honour commitment

of paying assured returns to the

investors

iii. Accused proposed a buy-back

arrangement from with

investors.

iv. The accused entered into buy-

back agreement with some of the

investors undertaking to

repurchase the allotted units for

CRWP-3145-2026 (O&M)

11

a buy-back consideration by

15.04.2020

v. For some of the complainants,

including respondent no.4, there

was no buy-back agreement

executed despite assurances.

vi. Thereafter accused Anubhav

Sharma sought time-extension

to repurchase units by

31.12.2020

vii. Despite repeated extensions, the

accused failed to pay the buy-

back consideration

viii. accused illegally created third-

party rights by leasing out the

units to third-party entities such

as M/s Bata India, without the

knowledge and/or consent of

respondent no.4 and other

complainants.

ix. A total of 8 units had been

purchased by the complainants

in this FIR, between the years

2010 and 2014.

x. However, on 29.06.2020, the

accused persons sold the said

units to Experion Centre without

informing the complainant firm,

and without cancelling the

agreement to sell, and also did

not return the money of the

complainants.

3. FIR

No.0002/2026

Resp No. 5

Sections 120-

B & 420 IPC

i. Failure to execute conveyance

deed despite payment of entire

consideration of

Rs.2,50,00,000/- duly recorded

in the Agreement to Sell bearing

Vasika No. 8365 dated

17.09.2021, while ignoring

repeated requests, reminders and

legal notice.

ii. Same unit which was agreed to

be sold to respondent no.5, was

sub-divided into 44 smaller units

and sold to 44 third-parties

4. FIR No.0040

dated

05.02.2026

Resp No. 6

Sections

316(5), 318(4)

and 61 of BNS

(erstwhile

Sections 409,

420 and 120-

B)

i. Despite payment of full

consideration amount,

conveyance deed was not

executed in favour of the

complainants.

ii. Accused collected additional

Rs.3,53,000 under the pretext of

executing a conveyance deed;

and further collected Rs.

43,255/- under pretext of

executing a Lease Deed.

iii. Neither conveyance deed nor

lease deed was executed for

complainant’s unit.

CRWP-3145-2026 (O&M)

12

iv. Without consent of the

complainant, the accused

persons instead leased the said

unit to Growth Hospitality LLP.

v. Although the unit sold to the

complainant was professed to be

unencumbered, but the unit sold

to the complainant i.e. U-8-70

(50 sq.feet) was already

mortgaged by the accused

persons with the Union Bank of

India.

5. FIR No.263

dated

20.12.2025

Resp No.3

Sections 409,

420, 467, 468,

471 and 120-B

i. Smaller unit delivered, while

charging for a larger area.

ii. Complainants were lured to

lease out the said property for a

30-year lease period to one

‘Growth Hospitality LLP’,

whose Directors were none other

than the present petitioner,

Dhruv Dutt Sharma, along with

co-accused Sharin Sharma.

iii. Initially, for 1-2 years, the rent

was paid, but later the

complainants stopped receiving

rent.

iv. The TDS (Tax Deducted at

Source) was deducted from the

rent paid to the complainants.

For the same, the complainants

requested Form 16A. Petitioner

and co-accused issued a forged

Form 16A.

v. From July 2025 onwards, the

accused persons stopped paying

the rent to the complainants.

19. The primary contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is

that all the FIRs pertain to the “32nd Avenue/32nd Milestone” project and

involve substantially the same set of accused persons; therefore, permitting

separate investigations to continue would result in multiplicity of proceedings

and amount to abuse of the process of law. According to the petitioner, the

disputes essentially arise out of investment/leasing arrangements and are

predominantly civil in nature, and consequently, all subsequent FIRs ought to

be treated as part of the Parent FIR.

20. Per contra, learned State Counsel, along with learned senior

counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.4, 5 and 6, vehemently

CRWP-3145-2026 (O&M)

13

opposed the aforesaid submissions and contended that consolidation of the

FIRs would unjustifiably permit the petitioner and his co-accused to evade

criminal liability arising out of separate and independent acts of alleged

cheating and fraud. It was submitted that each FIR discloses a distinct cause

of action involving different complainants, separate transactions, independent

representations, and varying factual foundations. According to the

respondents, although the project/property and some accused persons may be

common across the FIRs, the nature of allegations and the modus allegedly

adopted in each case are materially different, thereby necessitating separate

investigations so as to effectively examine each individual transaction and

independently ascertain the role of the accused persons in the respective acts

of alleged deception.

21. This Court has considered the rival submissions advanced by

learned counsel for the parties and is unable to accept the contentions raised

on behalf of the petitioner so as to warrant consolidation of the FIRs in

question.

22. Although, at first glance, the FIRs in question appear to

emanate from a common backdrop, namely the “32nd Avenue” project

involving substantially the same accused persons, a closer scrutiny of the

allegations contained in each FIR reveals separate transactions, distinct causes

of action, and different modes and manners in which the alleged offences are

stated to have been committed. Merely because the allegations pertain to the

same project, property, business entity or accused persons would not, ipso

facto, render all such offences part of the “same transaction”.

CRWP-3145-2026 (O&M)

14

23. By way of illustration, if an accused, driven by the same

motive, ill-will or common animosity, were to commit murders of different

members of the same family at different points of time, each such act would

nonetheless constitute a separate and distinct offence, requiring independent

adjudication and liability. The mere existence of a common motive, common

victims’ family, or identity of the accused would not amalgamate all such acts

into one transaction. Similarly, in the present case, the mere fact that the

allegations relate to the same project and involve overlapping accused persons

cannot, by itself, justify treating all FIRs as forming part of one and the same

transaction.

24. A comparative examination of the allegations contained in the

respective FIRs demonstrates that, barring FIR No.263 of 2025, each FIR

prima facie discloses an independent and distinguishable modus operandi

necessitating separate investigation. In the Parent FIR i.e. FIR No.262 of 2025,

the allegations primarily pertain to conveyance of lesser area than represented,

non-delivery of possession, non-fulfilment of rental commitments arising out

of a lease arrangement, and deduction of TDS from rental payments without

furnishing Form 16A to the complainants, thereby allegedly causing financial

prejudice. In contrast, FIR No.0001 of 2026 concerns allegations relating to

failure to honour assured returns and buy-back commitments, repeated

extensions sought for repurchase of units, and creation of third-party rights in

the units despite subsisting arrangements with the investors, culminating in

alienation of such units to another entity. FIR No.0002 of 2026, on the other

hand, pertains to allegations of receipt of entire sale consideration coupled

with failure to execute conveyance deeds, followed by alleged subdivision and

CRWP-3145-2026 (O&M)

15

transfer of the same unit to multiple third parties. FIR No.0040 of 2026 further

discloses allegations regarding procurement of additional monies on the

pretext of execution of conveyance and lease deeds, unauthorized leasing of

the unit without consent of the complainant, and concealment of an existing

mortgage over the property.

25. However, insofar as FIR No.263 of 2025 is concerned, the

allegations therein prima facie appear to substantially overlap with those

contained in the Parent FIR. The allegations in both FIRs broadly relate to

conveyance of lesser area than agreed, alleged default in payment of rent from

substantially the same period, and issues concerning deduction/deposit of

TDS. As per the reply filed by the State, allegations have also been levelled in

FIR No.263 of 2025 regarding issuance of forged Form 16A despite non-

deposit of TDS with the Income Tax Department. Although, in the Parent FIR,

the allegation is that Form 16A was not furnished despite deduction of TDS,

the core substratum of allegations in both FIRs appears to arise from

substantially overlapping factual circumstances.

QUA FIR NO. 0001/2026; FIR NO. 0002/2026 & FIR NO. 0040/2026,

REGISTERED AT POLICE STATION CIVIL LINES, GURUGRAM.

26. Thus, although the allegations in the aforesaid FIRs broadly

arise in the context of investments made in units situated within the same

commercial project, namely “32nd Avenue”, the factual substratum underlying

each FIR is materially distinct. The representations allegedly extended to the

respective complainants, the nature of inducement, the contractual

arrangements entered into, the documents executed, and the subsequent acts

complained of differ substantially from one FIR to another. The allegations are

neither founded upon one singular transaction nor upon one uniform or

CRWP-3145-2026 (O&M)

16

indivisible scheme perpetrated identically against all complainants. Each FIR

would necessarily require independent examination of separate agreements

and documents, distinct financial transactions, different witnesses, and

independent chains of events pertaining to the respective complainants. The

evidence required to establish the allegations in one FIR cannot be said to be

wholly common or interchangeable with that required in the others.

Consequently, FIR No.0001/2026, FIR No.0002/2026 and FIR No.0040/2026

each disclose separate and independent causes of action warranting distinct

investigation, and cannot be treated as forming part of the same transaction

merely because the project/property and some accused persons happen to be

common.

27. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that all

allegations arise out of one common project and therefore necessarily warrant

consolidation, cannot be accepted in light of the settled legal position that

similarity of subject matter is not synonymous with sameness of transaction.

Where separate complainants allege distinct inducements, independent

representations, and separate acts of cheating allegedly committed at different

points of time, such allegations cannot be artificially amalgamated into one

proceeding merely because the project/property involved or some accused

persons happen to be common.

28. The determinative test is not the identity of the project alone,

but whether the allegations arise out of one continuous and indivisible

transaction having a common factual foundation. In the present case, the

allegations contained in FIR No.0001/2026, FIR No.0002/2026 and FIR

No.0040/2026 disclose separate transactions with independent factual

CRWP-3145-2026 (O&M)

17

matrices, different contractual arrangements, distinct acts of alleged deception,

and varying consequences suffered by the respective complainants.

Consequently, the said FIRs cannot be treated as forming part of one

composite transaction so as to justify their consolidation with the Parent FIR.

29. This Court is also unable to accept the contention on behalf of

petitioner that non-consolidation of the FIRs would cause such prejudice to

the petitioner as would warrant exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction for

directing a joint investigation or trial. The constitutional and statutory

protections against double jeopardy or autrefois acquit/convict are intended to

safeguard an accused from being prosecuted or punished more than once for

the very same offence or transaction. However, such protections cannot be

expanded to encompass situations where separate FIRs disclose distinct

offences arising out of separate and independent transactions merely because

certain surrounding facts, parties, or the project involved may overlap. Merely

because the accused persons or the commercial project/property happen to be

common across the FIRs would not, ipso facto, establish identity of

transaction. Where the allegations pertain to different inducements, separate

representations, independent contractual dealings, and distinct acts of alleged

cheating committed against different complainants at different points of time,

each such allegation gives rise to a separate cause of action liable to be

independently investigated. Consequently, the petitioner cannot claim

prejudice merely on the ground that multiple FIRs have been registered in

relation to the same project, when the underlying transactions themselves are

materially distinguishable.

CRWP-3145-2026 (O&M)

18

30. Furthermore, as submitted by the learned State Counsel,

wherever complainants were found to have substantially similar grievances

arising out of the same set of allegations and disclosing a common modus

operandi, they have already been associated together in the respective FIRs

during the course of investigation itself. Therefore, it cannot be said that the

investigating agency has artificially or arbitrarily fragmented one singular

cause of action into multiple FIRs.

31. This Court also finds considerable substance in the contention

advanced on behalf of the respondents that consolidation of all the FIRs at this

stage may itself prejudice the investigation. Consolidation of such FIRs,

despite materially different factual foundations, may blur the individual nature

of the allegations and impede a focused investigation into the specific acts

allegedly committed against the respective complainants. Rather than

advancing the cause of justice, such consolidation may unnecessarily

complicate the investigative process and dilute examination of the separate

transactions forming subject matter of the respective FIRs.

32. The judgments relied upon by learned senior counsel for the

petitioner do not advance the petitioner’s case, as the factual matrix and legal

issues involved therein are materially distinguishable from those arising in the

present matter.

33. In T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC 181; State

(NCT of Delhi) v. Khimji Bhai Jadeja, 2026 SCC Online SC 19; Alok Kumar

v. State of Bihar, 2025 SCC Online SC 1728; Ravinder Singh Sidhu v. State

of Punjab, 2025 SCC Online SC 1164; Satinder Singh Bhasin v. State of

U.P., (2023) 14 SCC 1164; and Abhishek Singh Chauhan v. Union of India,

CRWP-3145-2026 (O&M)

19

2022 SCC Online SC 1936, the Courts were dealing with situations where the

subsequent FIRs/proceedings substantially arose from the same transaction,

same foundational allegations, or materially overlapping causes of action. In

such circumstances, multiplicity of proceedings was deprecated.

i. In T.T. Antony (supra) , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that there

cannot be a second FIR and consequently no fresh investigation can be

initiated upon receipt of every subsequent information relating to the same

cognizable offence or the same occurrence/incident giving rise to one or more

cognizable offences. The said judgment was rendered in the context of

successive FIRs arising out of the very same occurrence and based upon

subsequent information pertaining thereto. In the present case, however, the

FIRs neither arise from the same occurrence nor from subsequent information

concerning an already reported incident; rather, each FIR discloses a separate

transaction involving different investors and distinct factual allegations.

ii. In State (NCT of Delhi) v. Khimji Bhai Jadeja (supra), the

allegations pertained to a singular fraudulent scheme whereby multiple

investors were uniformly induced to part with money on the representation

that one Ashok Jadeja possessed divine powers to multiply money within a

short duration. The gravamen of allegations in all complaints thus stemmed

from the same inducement, same modus operandi, and one overarching

fraudulent design. The present case stands on a different footing, as the FIRs

arise out of separate transactions with different investors, involving distinct

agreements, varying factual assertions, and independent allegations against the

accused persons.

CRWP-3145-2026 (O&M)

20

iii. In Alok Kumar (supra), the allegations pertained to a

common housing/development scheme wherein funds were collected from

numerous investors for construction of flats which were never developed,

thereby disclosing a singular continuing scheme founded upon a common

representation made uniformly to all investors. In the present case, however,

each FIR pertains to distinct transactions entered into independently with

different investors, involving separate agreements, representations,

obligations, and alleged breaches.

iv. In Ravinder Singh Sidhu (supra), the Court was dealing with

allegations emanating from substantially interconnected acts forming part of a

common transaction and involving overlapping factual foundations. The ratio

therein would not apply to the present case where each FIR discloses an

independent transaction with separate complainants, distinct causes of action,

and different factual matrices requiring separate investigation.

v. In Satinder Singh Bhasin (supra)., the allegations arose out of the

“Bike Bot Scheme”, which constituted a single, unified investment scheme

uniformly floated to induce investments from the public at large through a

common promise and common modus operandi. In contrast, the present case

does not arise from one indivisible investment scheme or one composite

transaction, but from separate and independent dealings with different

investors, each requiring examination on its own factual footing.

vi. In Abhishek Singh Chauhan (supra), the proceedings arose from

allegations having a common substratum and substantial overlap in factual

foundation, thereby warranting judicial intervention to avoid parallel

proceedings in respect of the same transaction. However, in the present matter,

CRWP-3145-2026 (O&M)

21

the allegations in the respective FIRs are neither founded upon the same

occurrence nor upon one composite transaction, but relate to separate

transactions involving different complainants and distinct factual assertions.

vii. In Ashish Bhalla (supra), one of the FIRs had already

culminated in completion of investigation and presentation of challan by the

time the subsequent FIRs came to be registered. The Court, in the peculiar

facts of that case, ordered consolidation primarily on the ground that the

accused’s right to effectively defend himself was seriously prejudiced,

particularly as the FIRs arising out of substantially overlapping allegations had

been registered at different Police Stations, thereby exposing the accused to

parallel investigations and proceedings in relation to the same transaction. The

factual matrix of the present case, however, is materially distinguishable, as

the FIRs herein arise out of separate transactions involving different

complainants and independent causes of action.

34. The present case, stands on a materially different footing,

inasmuch as the FIRs in question, except to a limited extent qua FIR No.263

of 2025, disclose separate transactions involving different complainants,

distinct representations, independent contractual dealings, and varying modes

of alleged cheating, thereby giving rise to separate and independent causes of

action. The allegations range from failure to honour assured rentals and buy-

back commitments, to concealment of mortgage, unauthorized creation of

third-party rights, subdivision and resale of units to multiple purchasers. Thus,

the FIRs cannot be said to be mere repetitions or fragmented versions of the

Parent FIR.

CRWP-3145-2026 (O&M)

22

35. Rather, the present case is more appropriately governed by the

principles laid down State of Punjab v. Rajesh Syal, (2002) 8 SCC 158 and

Anju Chaudhary v. State of U.P., (2013) 6 SCC 384, wherein it was held that

separate acts of cheating committed against different persons in distinct

transactions cannot be artificially clubbed merely because the accused persons

or the broader project/property involved are common.

36. The extraordinary jurisdiction vested in this Court under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India, read with the inherent powers

preserved under Section 528 of the BNSS, is required to be exercised

sparingly, with circumspection, and only in exceptional cases where

intervention becomes necessary to prevent manifest abuse of process of law

or miscarriage of justice. Such jurisdiction cannot be invoked to obstruct or

stifle a legitimate investigation into distinct cognizable offences merely

because the accused persons, business entity, or project/property involved

happen to be common across different FIRs, particularly at a stage where the

investigating agency is yet to fully examine the individual factual matrices

underlying each FIR.

37. So far as the argument regarding the disputes being civil in

nature is concerned, the same also cannot be accepted at this stage. Mere

existence of a civil remedy or contractual relationship between the parties

would not by itself bar initiation or continuation of criminal proceedings where

the allegations prima facie disclose ingredients of cheating, criminal breach of

trust, forgery or dishonest inducement. Whether the allegations ultimately

result in conviction or otherwise is a matter to be determined upon completion

CRWP-3145-2026 (O&M)

23

of investigation and during trial, and not in proceedings seeking consolidation

of FIRs at the threshold stage.

QUA FIR NO.263 DATED 20.12.2025 REGISTERED AT POLIC E STATION CIVIL

LINES, GURUGRAM

38. Upon a careful examination of the allegations contained in

FIR No.263, this Court finds that certain allegations therein prima facie appear

to overlap with those contained in the Parent FIR, particularly with regard to

the area allegedly conveyed, alleged default in payment of assured rent during

substantially the same period, and issues pertaining to deduction/deposit of

TDS. At the same time, it is well settled that an FIR is not an encyclopedia of

all facts and circumstances relating to the alleged occurrence. The precise

nature and extent of overlap, if any, can therefore be conclusively determined

only upon a comprehensive investigation and examination of the material

collected by the investigating agency. Accordingly, if during the course of

investigation the investigating agency arrives at a conclusion that FIR No.263

and the Parent FIR substantially arise out of the same transaction and involve

materially overlapping allegations so as to warrant their consolidation, the

investigating agency shall be at liberty to club the said FIRs and conduct a

common investigation thereof.

39. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the opinion

that FIRs in question (except FIR No. 263/2025) i.e. FIR No.0001/2026, FIR

No.0002/2026 and FIR No.0040/2026 cannot be treated as forming part of the

same transaction so as to warrant consolidation with the Parent FIR, as each

of the said FIRs discloses a separate and independent cause of action

necessitating separate investigation. Further, insofar as FIR No.0002/2026 is

concerned, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has fairly stated that the

CRWP-3145-2026 (O&M)

24

petitioner has no objection if the said FIR is investigated independently and is

not clubbed with the Parent FIR.

40. However, insofar as FIR No.263/2025 is concerned, since

certain allegations therein prima facie appear to overlap with those contained

in the Parent FIR, liberty is granted to the investigating agency to examine the

extent of such overlap during investigation and, if deemed appropriate, to club

the said FIR with the Parent FIR and conduct a common investigation thereof.

41. Consequently, finding no merit in the present petition, the

same is hereby dismissed.

42. Interim order(s), if any, shall stand vacated.

43. So far as CRM-W-516 of 2026, CRM-W-595 of 202 6 and

CRM-W-630 of 2026, filed by other complainants seek ing

impleadment/intervention, are concerned, in view of the dismissal of the main

petition, no separate orders are required to be passed therein, and the said

applications are accordingly disposed of as having been rendered infructuous.

However, in view of the submissions advanced on behalf of the applicants that

their grievances/allegations are similar to those already under investigation in

some of the FIRs in question, and further considering the statement made by

learned State Counsel that persons having substantially similar allegations are

already being associated in the respective FIRs under investigation, this Court

deems it appropriate to observe that if the applicants claim to be similarly

situated persons having allegations akin to those already forming subject

matter of investigation in any of the FIRs in question, it shall be open to them

to approach the investigating agency concerned along with all supporting

material. Upon such request being made, the investigating agency may

CRWP-3145-2026 (O&M)

25

examine the same, and if it finds that the allegations substantially overlap with

those already under investigation in any existing FIR, it shall be open to the

investigating agency to associate/join such persons as complainants in the

concerned FIR(s).

44. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

(SUBHAS MEHLA)

JUDGE

13.05.2026

Sonia Puri

Whether Speaking/Reasoned: YES/NO

Whether Reportable: YES/NO