Supreme Court Clubbed The FIRs From Different States For The Same Transaction

While hearing a writ seeking clubbing of multiple FIRs, from different states in a real estate transaction fraud case, thereby reaffirming the principles from its earlier judgments.

Background: The Petitioner were directors of a private company, M/s Krrish Realtech Pvt. Ltd, against whom mutiple FIR's are registered in New Delhi and Haryana, due to the dispute centered on a real estate project titled "Brahma City/Krrish World", which had been significantly delayed, leading to numerous complaints from homebuyers regarding non-delivery of plots and the alleged misappropriation and diversion of funds.

While the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) in Delhi was already investigating FIR No. 30/2019, which clubbed 83 separate complaints, a subsequent FIR No. 439/2024 was registered in Gurugram, Haryana, on nearly identical allegations from same set of transactions and involved a "common thread" of grievances from homebuyers,

The Bench, comprising of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale, provided critical insights into the procedural safeguards against the abuse of the criminal justice system as the scheme of CrPC postulates a "single comprehensive investigation".

On the "Bar Against Second FIR" from the same transaction, the Apex Court relyied on the landmark ruling in T.T. Antony vs. State of Kerala.

The Apex Court emphasized that once an investigation commences, all subsequent information regarding the same transaction must be treated as statements under Section 162 CrPC rather than new FIRs.

Taking the note of the petitioner's contention—supported by a final report in an earlier related FIR—that many such disputes are essentially civil in nature involving breach of agreement, which reinforces the need for judicial caution against the mechanical registration of multiple criminal cases for a singular project failure.

Cosequenlty, the Apex Court partly allowed the writ petition, directing that the Delhi FIR be transferred to and clubbed with the Haryana FIR and reaffirmed that there can be no second FIR, and consequently no fresh investigation, for the same cognizable offence or the same occurrence.

With regards the second part of the prayer to restrain future coercive actions, the Apex Court clarified that it cannot grant "blanket directions" for FIRs that have not yet been registered. While the law protects against "Double Jeopardy" and multiple FIRs for the same transaction, it does not provide an anticipatory shield against investigations into potentially distinct future transactions.

Coram: Justice Pankajh Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale.