Supreme Court Clubs Haryana FIR With Delhi EOW Case in Brahma City Real Estate Dispute
A Division Bench transfers FIR No. 439/2024 from Gurugram to join Delhi's EOW investigation, holding parallel FIRs on identical facts impermissible under the CrPC scheme.
The Supreme Court has partly allowed a writ petition filed by Amit Katyal and another director of M/s Krrish Realtech Pvt. Ltd., directing that FIR No. 30/2019 registered at the Economic Offences Wing, Delhi be transferred and clubbed with FIR No. 439/2024 registered at Police Station Sector-65, Gurugram, Haryana.
A Division Bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale, deciding Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 67 of 2025, held that both FIRs arise from the same set of allegations concerning the real estate project “Brahma City / Krrish World” and that the Code of Criminal Procedure does not permit parallel investigations in different jurisdictions on the same transaction. The Court applied the settled principle from T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala and declined to grant a blanket restraint against future FIRs.
How the Dispute Reached the Court
Amit Katyal and Rajesh Katyal were Directors of M/s Krrish Realtech Pvt. Ltd., which launched the real estate project “Brahma City / Krrish World” and accepted bookings from homebuyers for plots. The project was delayed, possession was not delivered, and a series of FIRs followed across two states.
The first significant Delhi case was FIR No. 52/2016, registered at the Economic Offences Wing under Sections 406, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. On 18 April 2019, the EOW filed a final report stating that the transactions were civil in nature and no criminal inducement or misrepresentation could be established. That FIR was cancelled.
FIR No. 30/2019 was then registered at the EOW, Delhi, clubbing complaints from 83 homebuyers. After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed on 19 May 2022 alleging cheating and misappropriation of funds through holding companies. The trial court took cognizance and trial proceedings are pending.
Three further FIRs No. 178/2020, No. 30/2022, and No. 176/2022 were registered at the EOW, Delhi, covering allegations of inducing investors, non-delivery of flats, and diversion of funds. In Haryana, two earlier FIRs from 2013 at Gurugram were quashed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court following settlements with homebuyers.
On 21 December 2024, FIR No. 439/2024 was registered at PS Sector-65, Gurugram, Haryana, again alleging that the petitioners had duped homebuyers and misappropriated funds through shell companies, allegations that the petitioners said were already the subject matter of FIR No. 30/2019 in Delhi. Petitioner Amit Katyal was in judicial custody in another FIR at the time of filing. Rajesh Katyal had been arrested by the Directorate of Enforcement on 18 October 2024 and was granted bail on 14 November 2024.
The petitioners approached the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking, first, clubbing or transfer of FIR No. 439/2024 with FIR No. 30/2019 and, second, a blanket direction restraining coercive action in any future FIRs arising from the same transactions.
Contentions Before the Court
Senior counsel for the petitioners argued that multiple FIRs in Delhi and Haryana all stem from the same project and the same core allegations: non-delivery of plots and diversion of homebuyer funds. FIR No. 30/2019 had already clubbed 83 complaints and was under investigation and trial. The subsequent Gurugram FIR, counsel submitted, was based on identical allegations. Counsel also pointed to the EOW's own final report in FIR No. 52/2016, which had concluded that the transactions were civil in nature, to argue that at most the petitioners faced civil liability.
Mr. S.V. Raju, learned Additional Solicitor General for the State of Haryana, opposed the petition. He submitted that the alleged offences spanned more than one state, that the Haryana Police had constituted a Special Investigation Team and conducted extensive investigation, and that the petitioners had cheated a large number of homebuyers who had invested their entire savings.
Mrs. Aishwarya Bhati, learned ASG, submitted that Delhi Police had been unable to proceed with further investigation because interim orders restraining coercive steps had been passed against the petitioners. She added, without prejudice to Delhi Police's rights, that Delhi Police had no objection to investigation being conducted through a single agency as the Court deemed fit.
The Legal Principle: No Second FIR on the Same Transaction
The Court's analysis turned on the scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure as interpreted in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC 181. The Court extracted the core holding from that decision: only the earliest or first information regarding a cognizable offence satisfies the requirements of Section 154 CrPC. There can be no second FIR and consequently no fresh investigation on receipt of every subsequent information in respect of the same cognizable offence or the same occurrence or incident.
The Court noted that the scheme of the CrPC postulates a single, comprehensive investigation, with the investigating agency free to conduct further investigation and file supplementary reports under Section 173(8) CrPC, rather than permitting parallel and overlapping investigations in different fora. The Court also noted that T.T. Antony had been consistently reaffirmed in Arnab Goswami v. Union of India, (2020) 14 SCC 12, Amish Devgan v. Union of India, (2021) 1 SCC 1, and Mohd. Zubair v. NCT Delhi, (2023) 16 SCC 764.
Applying that principle to the facts, the Court found a common thread running through all the FIRs: homebuyers had paid money on assurances from the petitioners and had not received possession of plots or flats. FIR No. 439/2024 at Gurugram arose from the same set of allegations and formed part of the same transaction already under investigation in FIR No. 30/2019 at the EOW, Delhi.
The Court accepted that there was some merit in the submission that multiplicity of proceedings in different jurisdictions would cause prejudice to the petitioners. It held that permitting parallel investigations would be contrary to settled law and would risk conflicting findings. Consolidation, by contrast, would ensure a coordinated, effective and complete investigation while also allowing the petitioners to mount a meaningful defence in a single proceeding.
The Court's Reasoning on Which FIR Survives
The Court directed that FIR No. 30/2019 at the EOW, Delhi shall stand transferred and clubbed with FIR No. 439/2024 at PS Sector-65, Gurugram, Haryana, to be investigated in accordance with law. The practical effect is that the Haryana FIR, the later registration, becomes the consolidated vehicle, with the Delhi EOW FIR merged into it. The Court noted that the Haryana Police had already constituted an SIT and conducted extensive investigation, and that Delhi Police had no objection to a single-agency investigation.
On the allegation specific to Haryana, the transfer of money and properties situated in that state, the Court noted that this was what had drawn the Enforcement Directorate into the matter through ECIR/GNZO/04/2023. That context informed the Court's decision to consolidate investigation under the Haryana jurisdiction rather than the other way around.
Blanket Restraint on Future FIRs Declined
The petitioners had also sought a direction that no coercive action be taken against them in respect of any FIRs that might be registered in future on the basis of the same transactions. The Court declined this prayer in clear terms. It held that it was neither appropriate nor permissible to grant a blanket direction restraining coercive steps in respect of future FIRs. The Court clarified, however, that if any such FIR were registered on the basis of the same transaction, the petitioners would be free to avail such remedies as may be available to them in law.
Outcome
The writ petition was partly allowed. FIR No. 30/2019, PS Economic Offences Wing, Delhi is directed to stand transferred and clubbed with FIR No. 439/2024, PS Sector-65, Gurugram, Haryana, to be investigated in accordance with law. Prayer (B) for a blanket restraint on future FIRs was declined. Pending applications, if any, were disposed of. No order as to costs was made. The judgment was delivered on 18 May 2026 by Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale.