Gujarat HC quashes second FIR in alleged real-estate fraud involving 109 victims, directs evidence be added to first probe

The applicants sought quashing of an FIR registered at Bopal Police Station in 2026, alleging offences under Sections 318(4), 336(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 61 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The complainant alleged that he paid ₹21 lakh towards booking a shop in the applicants’ “Richmand” project after representations about the project and ownership of its land; he later discovered that construction had not proceeded and alleged that the land was not owned by the applicants or their LLP.

The applicants relied on an earlier FIR, registered in December 2024, concerning the same project and alleged lack of land ownership and RERA permission. A chargesheet in that case identified 109 victims.

Whether the 2026 FIR was barred by the rule of sameness because its allegations formed part of the same occurrence or transaction as the earlier FIR

Whether the later FIR should be quashed, with the complainant’s case and investigation material instead incorporated into the earlier investigation

Relying on T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash and Babubhai v. State of Gujarat, as well as the Supreme Court’s decision in Amit Katyal v. State of Haryana, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 890, the Court applied the rule that multiple FIRs and parallel investigations should not proceed in respect of the same occurrence or transaction giving rise to cognizable offences; the investigating agency may instead conduct further investigation and submit a supplementary report.

The Court also referred to the availability of relief under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or Article 227 of the Constitution in an appropriate challenge to a subsequent FIR.

The Court compared the FIRs and found that both concerned the same “Richmand” project and substantially the same allegations: that the applicants had taken booking payments despite lacking ownership of the project land and requisite RERA permission.

It noted that the earlier investigation had resulted in a chargesheet identifying 109 victims, and found no sufficient basis in the later FIR for extending the alleged offence period to February 2026.

Applying the rule against multiple FIRs for the same transaction, the Court concluded that the allegations in the two FIRs were not distinct and independent, notwithstanding the complainant’s separate booking transaction.

It directed the Investigating Officer to submit a supplementary report in the earlier FIR, include the present complainant as a witness, and place on record the material collected in the investigation of the quashed FIR.

The connected application for stay was disposed of accordingly.