Clubbing of FIRs in Same Transaction

The Supreme Court dealt with a writ petition under Article 32 seeking clubbing and transfer of multiple FIRs arising out of the real estate project Brahma City, also referred to as Krrish World. The petitioners said the complaints stemmed from the same set of transactions and that parallel proceedings in different jurisdictions would cause multiplicity and prejudice.

The Court noted that several FIRs had already been registered in Delhi and Gurugram concerning alleged non-delivery of plots, alleged cheating, and alleged diversion of funds. It also recorded that complaints from multiple homebuyers had been clubbed in some of the Delhi FIRs, and that earlier Gurugram FIRs had been quashed on settlement in separate proceedings.

The key issue was whether the later FIR at Gurugram could be treated as part of the same transaction already under investigation in Delhi, and whether the Court should also restrain coercive steps in respect of any future FIRs.

The Court held that FIR No. 439/2024 registered at Police Station Sector-65, Gurugram, arose out of the same set of allegations and formed part of the same transaction as FIR No. 30/2019 registered with the Economic Offences Wing, Delhi. It reasoned that permitting parallel investigations in such circumstances would be contrary to the scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure and would cause manifest prejudice to the petitioners.

Accordingly, the Court directed that FIR No. 30/2019, PS Economic Offences Wing, Delhi, shall stand transferred and clubbed with FIR No. 439/2024, PS Sector-65, Gurugram, Haryana, to be investigated in accordance with law.

On the broader prayer for a blanket direction restraining coercive steps in respect of future FIRs, the Court declined relief. It held that such a blanket order was neither appropriate nor permissible. At the same time, it clarified that if any further FIR is registered on the basis of the same transaction, the petitioners would be free to pursue remedies available in law.

The writ petition was partly allowed on those terms.

Practical takeaway: where multiple FIRs arise from the same real estate transaction, the Court may permit clubbing to avoid parallel proceedings, but it will not grant a blanket shield against future FIRs.