The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Amit Katyal & Anr. vs. State of Haryana & Anr., has re-emphasized the fundamental principle that multiple First Information Reports (FIRs) cannot be registered across different states for criminal offenses arising out of the same underlying transaction. The primary legal issue before the Apex Court was whether parallel, overlapping criminal investigations by separate state police agencies violate the scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure and cause undue prejudice to the accused and whether the FIRs should be clubbed or not. Additionally, the Court examined whether a blanket protection order could be granted to restrain law enforcement from taking coercive actions in any future FIRs that might be registered regarding the same real estate project.
The case arose from a series of criminal complaints against Amit Katyal and Rajesh Katyal, directors of M/s Krrish Realtech Pvt. Ltd.. The company launched a major real estate project named “Brahma City/Krrish World” in Gurugram, Haryana, and accepted substantial bookings from homebuyers. However, the project became severely delayed, leaving the developers unable to deliver possession of the plots or refund the investors’ money. This triggered a wave of litigation, leading to a case registered by the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) of the Delhi Police, which consolidated complaints from 83 affected homebuyers to investigate allegations of cheating and fund diversion. While this comprehensive investigation was already pending trial, a fresh case was registered at Police Station Sector-65 in Gurugram, Haryana, on nearly identical siphoning and cheating allegations regarding the very same project. Fearing continuous arrests and arguing that simultaneous investigations by different state agencies amounted to double jeopardy, the petitioners filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution requesting the Court to transfer and club the overlapping cases.
Evaluating the matter, the Hon’ble Supreme Court analyzed the statutory mechanism under the CrPC governing the registration of FIRs. Relying on the landmark precedent established in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, the Court reiterated that the law postulates a single, comprehensive investigation into a cognizable offense or an incident giving rise to connected offenses. The Court observed that a common thread ran through all the complaints across Delhi and Haryana, specifically, the homebuyers’ grievances regarding the non-delivery of flats despite full payments. The Court reasoned that permitting multiple, independent investigations in separate jurisdictions on the exact same set of facts leads to a needless multiplicity of proceedings, conflicting judicial findings, and severe procedural prejudice to the accused. Consolidating these cases at one location, the Court noted, serves the ends of justice by ensuring a coordinated, complete investigation while preserving the petitioners’ right to mount a cohesive defence in a single proceeding.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court partly allowed the writ petition. The Court granted the petitioners’ primary prayer by directing that Delhi’s FIR be transferred and clubbed with Haryana’s FIR, to be investigated in accordance with law. However, the Apex Court explicitly declined to grant a blanket protection order against future FIRs, ruling that it is legally impermissible to issue broad directions restraining coercive steps for cases that have not yet been registered. The Court clarified that if any subsequent FIRs are filed concerning the same real estate transaction, the petitioners remain free to pursue regular statutory remedies available under the law.