Supreme Court Clarifies Rule Against Parallel FIR(s)

The Supreme Court has reaffirmed a settled but practically important criminal law principle: where multiple FIR(s) arise from the same transaction or occurrence, the law does not permit parallel FIR(s) and overlapping investigations merely because different complainants approach different police stations. In Amit Katyal & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Anr., the Court applied the rule against a “second FIR” and directed consolidation of proceedings relating to the same real estate project, while refusing to grant any blanket protection against future coercive steps.

The case arose out of the stalled “Brahma City/Krrish World” real estate project. The petitioners, who were directors in M/s Krrish Realtech Pvt. Ltd., faced multiple FIRs in Delhi and Haryana from homebuyers and investors alleging non-delivery of plots/flats, non-refund of monies, cheating, and diversion of funds. The record before the Court showed that FIR No. 30/2019 registered with the Economic Offences Wing, Delhi had already clubbed complaints of 83 homebuyers and other complaints were also being investigated in that FIR. A later FIR No. 439/2024, came to be registered at Sector-65, Gurugram, on allegations substantially similar to those already under investigation concerning the same project.

A notable feature of the judgment is the Court’s close focus on the “common thread” running through the complaints. The Court noted that, despite registration in different jurisdictions, the essential grievance was the same: the petitioners had accepted money on the assurance of allotment and possession but failed to hand over the flats or plots. Even the allegations of fund transfer and diversion were treated as part of the broader factual matrix connected with the same project and same course of dealings.

The legal principle applied

The Court relied on T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala and extracted the core proposition that only the earliest information in respect of a cognizable offence satisfies Section 154 CrPC., and that there cannot be a second FIR regarding the same cognizable offence, same incident, or same transaction. The judgment reproduces the reasoning that once investigation commences, later information must ordinarily be treated as statements in the existing case, and if additional material surfaces, the investigating agency can proceed by way of further investigation and supplementary reports under Section 173(8) CrPC rather than by registering fresh FIR(s).

The Court also noted that this principle has been reaffirmed in Arnab Goswami v. Union of India, Amish Devgan v. Union of India, and Mohd. Zubair v. NCT Delhi. By placing the present case in that line of authority, the judgment makes clear that the rule against multiple FIR(s) remains fully operative where the factual substratum is substantially the same, even if complaints are lodged by different victims or in different States.

Why the ruling matters in multi-complainant fraud cases

This decision is especially relevant for large real estate and economic offence matters involving numerous investors. In such disputes, it is common for multiple purchasers to file separate complaints across jurisdictions. The Court recognised that allowing separate FIR(s) and parallel investigations on the same factual foundation would create avoidable multiplicity, expose the accused to serious prejudice, and risk conflicting findings by different agencies and courts. It therefore held that consolidation at one place better serves the ends of justice and allows a coordinated and effective investigation while preserving the accused’s ability to defend themselves meaningfully in one proceeding.

The judgment is also significant because the Delhi Police, through the Additional Solicitor General, stated that it had no objection if the investigation was conducted through one agency as the Court deemed fit, while Haryana argued that an SIT had already conducted extensive investigation. The Court ultimately considered it appropriate to transfer and club the Delhi EOW FIR with the later Haryana FIR for investigation in accordance with law.

Relief granted and relief refused

The Court allowed the prayer for consolidation and specifically directed that FIR No. 30/2019, Police Station Economic Offences Wing, Delhi, shall stand transferred and clubbed with FIR No. 439/2024, Police Station Sector-65, Gurugram. This is the operative part of the judgment and reflects the Court’s finding that both FIRs arose out of the same set of allegations and formed part of the same transaction.

At the same time, the Court declined the petitioners’ second prayer seeking a blanket direction that no coercive action be taken in respect of any future FIRs that may be registered on the basis of the same transactions. The Court held that such a general protective order was neither appropriate nor permissible. However, it clarified that if any such FIR is registered in future on the basis of the same transaction, the petitioners would be free to pursue remedies available in law. This part of the ruling is important because it balances protection against duplicative proceedings with the Court’s reluctance to issue anticipatory, open-ended restraints against future criminal process.

For practitioners, the judgment offers a useful litigation template. In cases involving multiple complaints from the same project, scheme, or transaction, the focus should be on demonstrating a shared factual nucleus: same project, same representations, same alleged default, and same pattern of fund use or diversion. If that commonality is established, the proper course is not repeated FIRs but a single comprehensive investigation, with liberty to the agency to file supplementary reports as further material emerges.