CRM-M Nos.39492 & 48542 of 2018 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.39492 of 2018 (O&M) Reserved on: 09.04.2026 Date of Decision: 10.07.2026 Sumit Mittal and another ......Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others ...... Respondents CRM-M No.48542 of 2018 (O&M) Reserved on: 09.04.2026 Date of Decision: 10.07.2026 Brij Nath Gupta and another ......Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others ...... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Chetan Mittal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Keshav Pratap Singh, Advocate Mr. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate Ms. Rubina Virmani, Advocate and Mr. Mayank Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Ramender Singh Chauhan, AAG, Haryana. Mr. Ranjeet Singh Chauhan, Advocate for the respondents No.5 & 6 in CRM-M No.39492 of 2018. for the respondents No.4 & 5 in CRM-M No.48542 of 2018. Mr. Gaurav Chopra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Reshabh Bajaj, Advocate and Mr. Harmeet Singh, Advocate for respondents No.7 to 12 in CRM-M No.39492 of 2018. MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.18 20:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M Nos.39492 & 48542 of 2018 (O&M) 2 Mr. Sudhir Rana, Advocate for respondent No.13 in CRM-M No.39492 of 2018. Mr. Kapil K. Rana, Advocate for the applicant in CRM-42222-2024 in CRM-M No.39492 of 2018. SURYA PARTAP SINGH , J . (Oral) : The extraordinary jurisdiction vested in this Court by virtue of Section 482 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure has been invoked in the above mentioned two petitions. By virtue of above mentioned petitions direction, against the respondents No.1 to 4, has been sought that they should not take cognizance on the complaints filed by the persons, who had participated in the proceedings pertaining to FIR No.234 dated 24.12.2008, Police Station Economic Offences Wing, New Delhi, either as complainant or witnesses or in any other capacity. 2. In addition to above mentioned prayer the petitioners have also sought a direction, against to the respondents No.1 to 4, that they should not to take any coercive action against the petitioners on any complaint filed by the private respondents or their representatives. 3. In nut-shell the facts emerging from record are that the petitioners in CRM-M-39492-2018, hereinafter being referred to as ‘first petition’ only, and the petitioner No.1 in CRM-M-48542-2018, hereinafter being referred to as ‘second petition’ only, are the erstwhile directors of ‘M/s Triveni Ferrous Infrastructure Private Limited’ (presently known as Maximal Infrastructure Private Limited) and the petitioner No.2 in second petition is the above named company itself. The petitioner No.2 in second petition has filed the present petition through its director ‘Mr. Vikas Karotiya’. MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.18 20:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M Nos.39492 & 48542 of 2018 (O&M) 3 4. According to petitioners ‘M/s Triveni Ferrous Infrastructure Private Limited’, hereinafter being referred to as ‘company’ only was incorporated on 27.12.2025 by four directors, i.e. petitioners No.1 and 2 in first petition along with ‘Surender Seth’ and ‘Ashish Seth’. As per petitioners the company was involved in the business of real estate and developed group housing project in Sector 89, Faridabad, and that a license for the above mentioned development was obtained from the Department of Town and Country Planning Haryana in the year 2007. It has been further alleged that two of the founding directors namely ‘Surender Seth’ and ‘Ashish Seth’ resigned from the Board of Directors from the company on 05.05.2015, followed by resignation of petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2 (in the first petition) on 21.10.2015, and thereafter, a new Board comprising of ‘Hari Mohan Gupta’ and ‘Vikas Karotia’ was constituted on 21.10.2015. 5. The petitioners have further pleaded that with regard to development of a part of above mentioned project, the company entered into an agreement with the respondents No.5 & 6 on 01.09.2008 and 18.02.2008, respectively, for the areas ad measuring 3.4568 acres and 2.0643 acres. According to petitioners due to violations and omissions, pointed out by the Director, Town and Country Planning, Government of Haryana, committed by the respondents No.5 and 6 on 08.06.2016, the above mentioned agreements were terminated by the company and with regard to above, a termination/suspension deed was executed. It has been further alleged by the petitioners that in the above mentioned deed there was a provision for the respondents No.5 and 6 that they would be entitled to rectify the defects and MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.18 20:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M Nos.39492 & 48542 of 2018 (O&M) 4 remove the breaches/violations of the sanctioned plan, and thereafter, continue with the project. 6. According to petitioners in view of above mentioned developments the respondents No.5 filed a Civil Writ Petition bearing No.CWP-13350-2016, titled as ‘ORS Infrastructure Vs. State of Haryana and others’, and that in the above mentioned order this High Court was pleased to pass the following order, on 08.08.2016:- ‘Mr. Anand Chhibbar, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate, has appeared on behalf of respondent no.4 to contend that licence no. 34-36 of 2007 has been cancelled by the State Government and thus, the agreement dated 1st September, 2008, executed between the petitioner and respondents no. 4 to 6 has since been cancelled on 22nd May, 2016. He, however, prays for time to file an affidavit, whether any school in Sector 88-89 Faridabad is being constructed or not.’ 7. It has been further pleaded by the petitioners that pursuant to above mentioned order an additional affidavit was submitted by the company, alleging therein that the above mentioned writ petition was an abuse of process of law, as by virtue of writ petition the respondent No.5 was trying to seek implementation of a private contract which was not permissible under the law. As per petitioners it was also brought into the notice of the Court, by virtue of above mentioned additional affidavit, that vide order dated 05.05.2015 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the petitioners were entitled to take any action against the respondents No.5 and 6 with regard to termination and MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.18 20:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M Nos.39492 & 48542 of 2018 (O&M) 5 cancellation of agreement. 8. The petitioners have further pleaded that the license issued for the development of above mentioned housing project, was not extended by the Government of Haryana beyond 22.01.2016, and that it was conveyed by the Director, Town and Country Planning, Government of Haryana, vide order dated 04.07.2016, that without fulfillment/compliance of conditions contained in the order dated 04.07.2016 the license would not be renewed. As per complainant all the conditions mentioned in the order were complied with by the company except the payment of housing dues against the External Development Charges (EDC). According to petitioners the same was to be paid by the Directors of ‘Ferrous Alloys Forgings Private Limited’ in view of order dated 05.05.2015 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. 9. It has been further alleged by the petitioners that with regard to alleged violation of order dated 05.05.2015, passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, contempt petitions were filed in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, bearing contempt petition No.257-2016 and contempt petition No.889- 2017. The petitioners have further alleged that in the above mentioned two contempt petitions, the respondents No.5 and 6 filed two applications seeking for their impleadment for the redressal of their grievance and sought following reliefs:- a) clarify that the order dated 05.05.2015 does not apply to non- parties to the proceedings; b) further clarify that the order dated 05.05.2015 does not confer any right/authority on ‘M/s Maximal Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd.’, MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.18 20:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M Nos.39492 & 48542 of 2018 (O&M) 6 over and above the ones contained in the agreement dated 01.09.2008; c) further clarify that the order dated 05.05.2015 does not confer any right/authority on M/s Maximal Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. over and above the ones contained in the agreement dated 18.02.2008; d) direct the licensees (i.e. the petitioner and the respondents) to forthwith deposit to the State Government the entire amounts of external Development Charges (EDC) paid to them by the applicants, and further to issue no-objection certificate in favour of the applicants without imposing any conditions; e) direct the competent authority of the State Government to forthwith grant beneficiary interest to the applicants in terms of its policy dated 18.2.2015; f) direct the competent authority of the State Government to conduct inspection and grant occupation certificates within a fixed time period, as and when the applicants make such requests, so as to enable the applicants to deliver the physical possession of the flats to the allottees. As per petitioners taking into consideration the above mentioned developments the CWP-13350-2016, filed by the respondents No.5 and 6, was adjourned sine die by this Court vide order dated 01.03.2017. 10. It is the claim of the petitioners that the respondents No.5 and 6 while concealing all the above mentioned facts, filed a false and frivolous MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.18 20:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M Nos.39492 & 48542 of 2018 (O&M) 7 complaint against the petitioners before Faridabad police, with regard to the same cause for which petition for adjudication were pending before this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. As per complainant in view of the complaint filed by the respondents No.5 and 6 the petitioners were asked to appear before Faridabad police on various dates, and that the above mentioned directions were complied with by the petitioners. According to petitioners the basis of above mentioned complaint was the cancellation of license on account of non-payment of External Development Charges. With regard to above, it is a claim of the petitioners that the above mentioned fault could not have been attributed to the petitioners, but to ‘M/s Ferrous Alloys Forgings Private Limited’, the company having obligations to deposit the External Development Charges in view of undertaking given before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. 11. The petitioners have further alleged that the police authority were duly apprised about the above mentioned fact, and also the fact that the matter was already under consideration before this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, but the police authority at Faridabad threatened the petitioners, and asked them either to enter into compromise with the respondents No.5 and 6 or face the prosecution by virtue of the FIR. As per petitioners when the petitioners did not succumb to the pressure of Faridabad police, two FIRs, i.e. FIR No.219 of 2018 and FIR No.220 of 2018, were lodged in Police Station Bhopani, Faridabad, despite the fact that the complainant in the above mentioned FIRs, i.e. respondents No.5 and 6, were already before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India by filing a petition for their impleadment in the MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.18 20:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M Nos.39492 & 48542 of 2018 (O&M) 8 contempt petition. 12. 12. It has been further alleged by the petitioners that the above mentioned FIRs have been lodged by Faridabad police despite the fact that with regard to development of project situated in Sectors 78 & 89 Faridabad one FIR, i.e. FIR No.234 dated 24.12.2008 was already registered by the Economic Offence Wing Crime Branch, New Delhi, for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B IPC. As per petitioners in the above mentioned case after investigation challan was duly presented before the Court. It has been specifically mentioned by the petitioners that in the above mentioned challan all the allottees/investors were arrayed by the police either as complainants or the witnesses. The petitioners have further alleged that despite above mentioned prosecution by Economic Offence Wing of Delhi Police, two FIRs have been registered by Faridabad police. 13. Further, it is claim of the petitioners that in order to extract money from the petitioners, the allottees/investors who participated in the prosecution pertaining to FIR No.234 dated 24.12.2008, filed a petition bearing CRM-M- 37425-2013, in this Court. As per petitioners, by virtue of above mentioned petition the petitioner ‘Ravi Sachdeva’ sought a direction to SHO Police Station Bhopani, Faridabad to register FIR against the petitioners, for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. According to petitioners, the above mentioned petition was dismissed by this Court by virtue of order dated 07.11.2013 while observing that “counsel for the petitioner has failed to refer to any provision of law which entitles an aggrieved person to lodge second/successive FIR on the MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.18 20:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M Nos.39492 & 48542 of 2018 (O&M) 9 same set of allegations even if he is not satisfied with the investigation carried out by an earlier investigating agency and/or final report submitted before the Court. The petitioner, in place of availing appropriate remedy under law for redressal of his grievance in regard to any failure on the part of the investigating agency to conduct proper investigation in FIR No. 234 of 2008, has filed the instant petition which has no legal foundation. From perusal of averments contained in the petition, it is apparent that the petitioner never approached the SHO, Police Station Bhupani, Faridabad, for registration of an FIR may be, he was aware that no second criminal case can be registered on the same set of allegations which are the subject matter of FIR No. 234 of 2008, registered at Police Station Economic Offences Wing (Crime and Railway), New Delhi and the jurisdictional Magistrate being seized of the matter in view of final report submitted under section 173 of the Code.” 14. The petitioners have further alleged that the allottees/investors in collusion with police officials have been regularly putting pressure upon the petitioners to enter into compromise, and that to achieve their goals they have been filing false and frivolous complaints against the petitioners. With reference to above mentioned allegations the petitioners have alleged that in the backdrop of above mentioned facts a petition bearing CRM-M-36730- 2018, titled as “Vikas Karotiya and others Vs. State of Haryana and others’ was filed by petitioner, wherein the following order was passed:- "Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that registration of the present FIR is abuse of the process of criminal justice administration system in as MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.18 20:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M Nos.39492 & 48542 of 2018 (O&M) 10 much as FIR No.234 dated 24.012.2008 has already been filed against the petitioners and the present complainant is also a complainant therein. Challan has already been presented in the said FIR. Moreover, in the civil litigation initiated by the complainant and others, the property in dispute has been handed over to the official liquidator of the Delhi High Court and process is on for making recovery of dues therefrom. It is further submitted that the present FIR has been registered after a gap of 12 years with ulterior motive. Notice of motion for 31.10.2018. Meanwhile, the State is restrained from taking any coercive steps against the petitioners till the next date of hearing". 15. It has been further alleged by the petitioners that with regard to FIR No.234 dated 24.12.2008, lodged by Delhi Police, the benefit of bail accorded to the petitioners was withdrawn by Delhi High Court, and therefore, the petitioners had filed a petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, i.e. SLP (Criminal) No.8427-2012. As per petitioners, the above mentioned petition was allowed by Hon’ble Apex Court, while holding that the total assets of the company were more than the total claim of the investors. According to petitioners, the benefit of bail, withdrawn by Delhi High Court, was restored by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. 16. Joint replies to the above mentioned petitions have been filed by the respondents No.1 to 4 (in first petition). It has been alleged by the respondents No.1 to 4 (in first petition) that the respondents No.5 (in first petition) had filed a complaint against the petitioners alleging that the MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.18 20:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M Nos.39492 & 48542 of 2018 (O&M) 11 petitioners, in the first petition, had approached the respondent No.5 (in first petition) for the purchase of land ad measuring 22.5 acres situated at village Tikawali District Faridabad and paid the token amount. According to respondent No.5 (in first petition) (complainant) for the payment of sale consideration post dated cheques were issued by the petitioners, but the abovesaid cheques were not honoured by the banker of the petitioners. As per respondents No.1 to 4 (in first petition) the respondent No.5 (in first petition) further alleged that when he approached the petitioners, on dis-honour of cheques, the petitioners extended the dates of above mentioned cheques, but the cheques were never honoured by the banker of petitioners, and therefore, finding no alternative, the respondent No.5 (in first petition) vide agreement dated 01.09.2008 purchased and acquired rights with respect to a piece of land ad measuring 380.562 square feet against sale consideration of Rs.26,56,99,525/- and adjusted the amount which was subject matter of the cheques. 17. According to respondents No.1 to 4 (in first petition) it was claimed by the respondent No.5 (in first petition) that although exclusive possession of above mentioned area was acquired by the respondent No.5 (in first petition), but the same was not developed as due to non-payment of ‘External Development Charges’, by the petitioner No.2 (in second petition), the construction over the above mentioned property could not be carried out and the license was cancelled. According to respondents No.1 to 4 (in first petition), it was further alleged by the respondent No.5 that despite receipt of ‘External Development Charges’ from the respondent No.5, the charges were MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.18 20:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M Nos.39492 & 48542 of 2018 (O&M) 12 not deposited with the concerned authority, and therefore, the respondent No.5 alleged that he was a victim of fraud/cheating played by the petitioners. As per respondents No.1 to 4 (in first petition), it was also alleged by the respondent No.5 (in first petition), in his above mentioned complaint (in first petition), that not only the petitioner No.2 in second petition failed to pay the ‘External Development Charges’ to the authority, but also failed to develop the area, causing prejudice to the rights of large number of buyers. 18. The respondents No.1 to 4 (in first petition) have further alleged that with regard to above mentioned allegations, contained in the complaint of respondent No.5, an inquiry was conducted and in the inquiry it was revealed that the petitioners had received a demand draft of Rs.28,03,755/- for license fee, a bank guarantee of Rs.78,92,173/- for Internal Development Work and Rs.22,86,000/- as non-refundable consultancy charges, but neither the license was got renewed nor the Internal Development Work was carried. As per respondent No.1 to 4 (in first petition), in view of above mentioned allegations it was found that above mentioned act and conduct of the petitioners amounted to an offence punishable under Sections 384 IPC. 19. The respondents No.1 to 4 (in first petition) have further alleged that the respondent No.6 had filed another complaint with regard to commission of offence punishable under Sections 406, 420/120-B IPC. As per respondents No.1 to 4 (in first petition), in the above mentioned complaint it was alleged by the respondent No.6-complainant that the respondent No.6 had purchased Floor Space Index rights with regard to land ad measuring 2,27,507.26 square feet situated in the revenue estate of village Tikawali, vide MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.18 20:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M Nos.39492 & 48542 of 2018 (O&M) 13 agreement and Power of Attorney executed by the petitioners, who were holding a license for development of the area, issued by the Town and Country Planning Department, Government of Haryana. According to respondents No.1 to 4 (in first petition), it was further alleged by the respondent No.6 that an assurance was given by the petitioners to them, that the license granted to them would be duly renewed and under the above mentioned false pretext they received money in the name of license renewal fees, internal development charges and consultation charges, but never deposited the ‘External Development Charges’ with the department, resulting into refusal for renewal of license by the Government of Haryana. 20. 20. In view of above mentioned averments, it has been pleaded by the respondents No.1 to 4 (in first petition), that an inquiry with regard to above mentioned allegations was conducted and on the basis of inquiry, the FIR had been lodged. According to respondents No.1 to 4, in view of above mentioned facts no ground for according the relief, as claimed in the present petition, to the petitioners is made out. 21. Similar pleas have been taken by the respondents No.1 to 3 in the second petition. With regard to above mentioned reply it is relevant to mention here that the respondents No.5 to 12 (in first petition) and respondents No.4 & 5 (in second petition) have adopted the above mentioned reply submitted by the respondents No.1 to 4 (in first petition), and respondents No.1 to 3 (in second petition. It is also relevant to mention here that respondent No.13 (in first petition) has not chosen to file any reply, despite opportunity. 22. Heard. MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.18 20:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M Nos.39492 & 48542 of 2018 (O&M) 14 23. At the threshold itself the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners has contended that instant case is a case wherein with regard to failure of the same project already three criminal case, i.e. FIRs, have been faced by the petitioners and when the endevour of private respondents and other home buyers to prosecute the petitioners in illegal manner, i.e. by filing false complaints, failed they are again trying to involve the petitioners in another round of litigation by filing fresh complaints in the name of different home buyers. 24. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioners has contended that with regard to same project one FIR was lodged by ‘Economic Offences Wing’ of Delhi Police in which a charge-sheet was filed, but the charge sheet failed in the Court of law and the petitioners have been discharged. It has been further pointed out by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners that another round of litigation took place when two FIR, i.e. FIR No.219 of 2018 and FIR No. 220 of 2018 were lodged by Faridabad police in Police Station Bhopani, but later on finding no merits, both the FIRs have been cancelled. 25. As per learned Senior counsel for the petitioners otherwise also the only grievance of the home buyers who are trying to start fresh round of litigation, is that they had invested money in the above mentioned project, but neither house/plots were made available to them nor the money was refunded. With regard to above, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners has contented that ‘M/s Triveni Infrastructure Development Company Ltd.’ has already gone into liquidation process , and that in the above mentioned process all the secured creditors, including the home buyers, are being compensated MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.18 20:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M Nos.39492 & 48542 of 2018 (O&M) 15 and their statement of claims have already been called by the Official Liquidator. According to learned Senior counsel for the petitioners, in view of above, the home buyers have no cause for resorting to criminal litigation. 26. It has been further contended by learned Senior counsel for the petitioners that instant case pertains to a dispute, which has a very long history, including various prosecutions and litigations, with regard to present dispute in different Courts at different level, i.e. right from the level of trial Court to Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, and therefore, in order to cover all the incidents and apprise the Court about the history of this case detailed pleadings have been submitted. 27. However, as per learned Senior counsel for the petitioners the dispute with regard to present petitions romes in a very narrow compass, as the scope of adjudication of issue in the present petition is very limited. According to learned Senior counsel for the petitioners, in fact, in the present petitions this Court has to ascertain as to whether with regard to a dispute, qua which criminal proceedings have already taken place at Delhi, separate FIRs in the State of Haryana can be lodged. 28. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioners have further contended that in fact, with regard to a housing project which was launched by the petitioners in a perfectly legal manner, after obtaining requisite permission/license from the Government of Haryana, a piece of land had to be developed in District Faridabad, and that difficulty arose due to failure in the execution of above mentioned project. According to learned Senior counsel for the petitioners initially everything was in order and the progress in the MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.18 20:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M Nos.39492 & 48542 of 2018 (O&M) 16 project was taking place at a satisfactory pace, but subsequently due to unforeseen incidents which were beyond the control of petitioners, the project landed into rough weather and, various problems were faced by the petitioner No.4 (in second petition) in completing the project work. 29. As per learned Senior counsel for the petitioners since the project could not be completed, for whatever reasons, it may be, the investors and the home buyers, who had invested their money in the project, got aggrieved, and therefore, a complaint was filed before Economic Offences Wing, New Delhi, by ‘Ravi Sachdeva’ (allottee). According to learned Senior counsel for the petitioners on the basis of above mentioned complaint the FIR No.234 dated 24.12.2008 was lodged by Delhi Police and the investigation was initiated. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioners have further argued that once the FIR was lodged and the investigation taken up, other complaints poured in the office of Economic Offences Wing, New Delhi, at the instance of other home buyers in the same project. 30. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioners have further contended that all the aggrieved home buyers, who had purchased properties in the above mentioned project situated in Sector-89, Faridabad, were joined by the Economic Offence Wing as witness in the case pertaining to FIR No.234 dated 24.12.2008. As per learned Senior counsel, since the number of complaints, filed by the home buyers was large, instead of recording FIR on the basis of each complaint, the Economic Offences Wing of Delhi police tagged the above mentioned complaints with the main complaint in the case pertaining to FIR No.234 dated 24.12.2008, and all the home buyers, including MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.18 20:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M Nos.39492 & 48542 of 2018 (O&M) 17 those who had filed complaint, were made witnesses in the case. 31. It has also been contended by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners that the home buyers in the above mentioned project not only participated in the abovementioned prosecution of the petitioners, either as complainant or as witness, but also participated by forming an association namely ‘BSF Family Welfare Society and Hitkari Development Society’. As per learned Senior counsel through above mentioned body also the home buyers participated in the prosecution of the petitioners, and even contested various petitions before the High Court of Delhi and the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. 32. In view of above, it has been contended by learned Senior counsel for the petitioners that the grievance of all the home buyers who had invested money in the project of petitioner No.2 (in second petition), situated in Sector 89, Faridabad were given due audience and opportunity to contest criminal cases against the petitioners. 33. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioners have further contended that after thorough investigation of above mentioned case by Delhi police, a charge sheet (challan) under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed by Delhi Police in the Court of learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Saket, New Delhi. According to learned Senior counsel for the petitioners the above mentioned charge-sheet was duly considered by the above mentioned trial Court and vide order dated 27.02.2025, the application for discharging the petitioners was dismissed. As per learned Senior counsel for the petitioners against the order dated 27.02.2025, the petitioners had preferred a revision MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.18 20:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M Nos.39492 & 48542 of 2018 (O&M) 18 petition before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Saket on 11.03.2025 and the above mentioned revision petition was allowed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide judgment dated 26.05.2025. 34. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioners have further contended that by accepting the above mentioned revision petition the application seeking discharge of the petitioners stands allowed and the prosecution/proceedings against the petitioners stands dropped. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has further contended that in view of above the above mentioned chain of litigation between the parties has become final. 35. While referring to above mentioned chronology of events, pertaining to the present cases, it has been contended by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners that all the home buyers who were aggrieved due to failure of project, to be executed by the petitioner No.2 (in second petition), were given due audience and opportunity in the investigation vis-a-vis litigation pertaining to the project in question, but on failure in the case pertaining to FIR No.234 dated 24.12.2008, the home buyers in the name of other complainant/body have tried to rake up the same issue between the same parties, by fling different complaints before Faridabad police, and the Faridabad police despite being apprised of the fact that with regard to same issue one FIR had already been lodged and the investigation completed by Delhi Police, in order to put pressure upon the petitioners is bent upon to file subsequent multiple FIR against the petitioners and prosecute them. 36. 36. According to learned Senior counsel for the petitioners the above mentioned act of Faridabad police, i.e. forcing the petitioners to face in second MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.18 20:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M Nos.39492 & 48542 of 2018 (O&M) 19 round of litigation is nothing, but an abuse of process of law. It has further been contended by learned Senior counsel for the petitioners that in fact, it is settled principles of law that once with regard to same set of facts, between the same parties a round of litigation has attained finality, the second round of prosecution, by resorting to another FIR/complaint, is not permissible. 37. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioners (in both petitions) have also contended that instant case is a case wherein there is blatant abuse of process of law by filing multiple FIRs with regard to same project, by taking a stand that every home buyers in one project has got individual right to file complaint and seek registration of FIR against the petitioners. As per learned Senior counsel for the petitioners the law does not permit so, and therefore, on subsequent complaint filed before Faridabad police any action against the petitioners cannot be initiated. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioners have contended that in view of above, Faridabad police should be restrained from taking any coercive steps against the petitioners. 38. In support of his arguments, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners has referred to the principles of law laid down in the following cases. i. By the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Zahira Habibulla Vs. State of Gujarat (2004) 4 SCC 158 ii. By the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sidhartha Vashist Alias Manu Sharma Vs. State NCT of Delhi (2010) 6SCC1 iii. By the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in the case of P.A. Shaduly @ Haris Vs. State of Kerla, 2017 (SC) Online Ker 2726 MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.18 20:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M Nos.39492 & 48542 of 2018 (O&M) 20 iv. By the High Court of Bombay in the case of Sanjay Vasant Kadam Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, 2015 SCC Online Bom 5631. v. By the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in the case of 2004 SC Online AP 1108 vi. By the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State (NCT) of Delhi Vs. Khimji Bhai Jadeja, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 19 vii. By the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Amitbhai Anilchandra Vs. CBI (2013) 6 SCC 348 viii. By the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Upkar Singh Vs. Ved Prakash (2004) 13 SCC 292 ix. By the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of T.T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala and Others, 2001(6) SCC 181 x. By the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Babubhai Vs. State of Gujarat (2010) 12 SCC 254 xi. By the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Arnab Ranjan Goswami Vs. Union of India and others (2020) 14 SCC 12 xii. By the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Amish Devgan Vs. Union of India and others (2021) 1 SCC 1 xiii. By the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Krishna Lal Chawla and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another (2021) 5 SCC 435 xiv. By the High Court of Delhi in the case of State Vs. Ramesh Chand Kapoor, 2012 SCC Online Del 4489 xv. By the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ashok Debbarma Alias Achak Debbarma Vs. State of Tripura (2024) 4 SCC 747 xvi. By the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Alok Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar and Ors. 2025 SCC Online SC 1728 39. The learned State counsel appearing for the respondents No.1 to 4 MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.18 20:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M Nos.39492 & 48542 of 2018 (O&M) 21 has controverted the above mentioned arguments. According to the learned State counsel, in the present case, a direction has been sought against the respondents No.1 to 4, to the effect that on a complaint filed against the petitioners action should not be taken by the respondents No.1 to 4. According to learned State counsel any such direction cannot be issued which would provide a blanket protection to the petitioners. 40. The above mentioned arguments, adduced by learned counsel for the petitioners, have been controverted by the learned counsel for the private respondents also. It has been contended by learned counsel for the private respondents that instant case is the perfect example of misuse of process of law by the petitioners. According to learned counsel for the private respondents the present petitions have been filed by the petitioners while creating an impression that the petitioners are the victim, who are being subjected to repeated litigations by the same set of home buyers. As per learned counsel for the private respondents the facts are otherwise. 41. With regard to above it has been contended by learned counsel for the private respondents that separate deals regarding construction of flats were struck by the petitioners with different home buyers, and that each home buyer had entered into separate agreement with the petitioners, at different point of time for different quantum of money, paid through different modes of payment. According to learned counsel for the private respondents in such circumstances, there cannot be a link between the cause available to one home buyer against the petitioners, with the cause of action avoidable to other home buyers. MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.18 20:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M Nos.39492 & 48542 of 2018 (O&M) 22 42. As per learned counsel for the private respondents once each home buyers has got a separate, distinct and different dispute with the petitioners, each home buyer has got a right to sue the petitioners in his individual capacity, and therefore, simply because one complaint was filed by ‘Ravi Sachdeva’ before Delhi police, which led to registration of FIR No.234 dated 24.12.2008, does not mean that other home buyers, who had not approached Economic Offences Wing, New Delhi or those home buyers who although approached Economic Offences Wing of Delhi Police but on their complaint FIRs were not lodged, are debarred from raising their grievance before Faridabad police, which is having territorial jurisdiction qua the issue in view of the fact that the project site is situated within the territorial jurisdiction of District Faridabad. 43. The learned counsel for the private respondents has further contended that a very strange plea has been taken by the petitioners in the present case, that with regard to issue involved in FIR No.234 dated 24.12.2008, Police Station Economic Offences Wing, New Delhi, which pertains to the grievance of complainant ‘Ravi Sachdeva’, the grievances of other home buyers, including those who were arrayed as witness, stand addressed. According to learned counsel for the private respondents in fact the grievance of private respondents as well as other home buyers are altogether separate, distinct and different, from the grievance of ‘Ravi Sachdeva’, and therefore, by any stretch of imagination, or by applying any principle of law, it cannot be observed that in the FIR lodged by ‘Ravi Sachdva’ the grievances of the private respondents and other home buyers have been addressed. MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.18 20:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M Nos.39492 & 48542 of 2018 (O&M) 23 44. The learned counsel for the private respondents has also contended that one of the important issue to be looked into, in the present case, is that ‘Ravi Sachdeva’ was home buyer and when he filed a complaint before Economic Offences Wing of Delhi Police, his complaint against the petitioners was not as a representative of all the home buyers, but in his personal capacity only. 45. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the private respondents that this argument of learned counsel for the petitioners has got no force that, merely, because Official Liquidator, appointed for the liquidation process of the company has asked for the statement of claims from the secured creditors, with a motive to return their money, the criminal liability of the petitioners can be ignored. According to learned counsel for the private respondent the remedy with regard to recovery of money, which is a civil remedy, and the remedy of filing of complaint for cheating, which is a criminal remedy, are two distinct remedies available to the victims, and that any victim aggrieved of the criminal activities of the petitioners, has got a right to approach the police at Faridabad and file a complaint. 46. While claiming that the respondents No.7 to 13 never participated in the investigation and trial, related to FIR No.234 dated 24.12.2008, Police Station Economic Offences Wing, New Delhi, it has been contended by learned counsel for the private respondents that the above named respondents have got a right to approached Faridabad police and logde FIR against the petitioners. While claiming that the present petitions have been filed with mala fide intentions, to wriggle-out of the consequences of illegal MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.18 20:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M Nos.39492 & 48542 of 2018 (O&M) 24 acts/offences, committed by the petitioners, by cheating the private respondents No.7 to 13 and others home buyers, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the private respondents that the present petitions are devoid of merit and deserve dismissal. 47. The record has been perused carefully. 48. In the present case if the entire chronology of the events are considered together, it transpires that following are the relevant factors qua which there is no dispute between the parties. However, those factors are relevant for the decision of the present petition. The abovesaid factors are: i) that the petitioner No.2 (in second petition) is a company incorporated under the Companies Law; ii) that petitioners No.1 and 2 (in first petition) and petitioner No.1 (in second petition) were the directors of petitioner No.2 (in second petition), company; iii) that the petitioner No.2 (in second petition) launched a project of real estate for development of group housing society in Sector-89 Faridabad, somewhere around in 2006; iv) that for the development of above mentioned project the Government of Haryana accorded due permission and issued license in favour of petitioner No.2 (in second petition); v) that the petitioner No.2 (in second petition) invited various home buyers through advertisement and other means, prompting them to book various housing units in the project being developed by the petitioner No.2 (in second petition); MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.18 20:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M Nos.39492 & 48542 of 2018 (O&M) 25 vi) that due to various violations recorded by the Town and Country Planning Department of Government of Haryana and non-payment of External Development Charges, the license issued in favour of petitioner No.2 (in second petition) was cancelled; vii) that once the project of petitioners failed, a complaint was filed by the home buyer, namely ‘Ravi Sachdeva’, before Economic Offences Wing, New Delhi; vii) that during the course of investigation in the above mentioned FIR another complaints, too, were received by Delhi police, but instead of filing separate FIRs in response to above mentioned complaints, all such complaints were tagged with the principle complaint pertaining to FIR No.234 dated 24.12.2008 and all the complaints were cited as prosecution witnesses; viii) that with regard to same project two FIRs were lodged by Faridabad police, i.e. FIR Nos.219 and 220 of 2018, and both the above mentioned FIRs have already been cancelled by the police; 49. In the light of the above mentioned factual matrix of the present case, now the present petitions have been filed by the petitioners, apprehending that other set of same home buyers, in connivance with those home buyers who have failed in their endevaour before Delhi police and Faridabad police, are trying to implicate the petitioners in another round of litigation by filing separate complaints. MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.18 20:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M Nos.39492 & 48542 of 2018 (O&M) 26 50. In the present case, the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘T.T. Antony (supra)’, are relevant. It has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that “there cannot be second FIR in relation to the same cognizable offence and consequently, there can be no fresh investigation on receipt of every subsequent information in respect of same cognizable offence or same occurrence or incident, giving rise to one or more cognizable offence”. 51. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of above mentioned case has further observed that on receipt of information about a cognizable offence or any incident giving rise to a cognizable offence or offences, and on entering the FIR in the station house diary, the officer incharge of the police station has to investigate not merely the cognizable offence reported in the FIR, but also any other connected offence that may be found to have been committed. 52. It has also been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that all the subsequent informations, made orally or in writing, after the commencement of investigation into the cognizable offence will be statements covered under Section 162 Cr.P.C. 53. According to the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India [in the case of ‘T.T. Antony (supra)’], even if after conclusion of investigation, pursuant to filing of the FIR and submission of report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. the Officer Incharge of the police station comes across any further information pertaining to the same incident, he can make further investigation, normally with the leave of the Court and forward further evidence, if any collected, with MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.18 20:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M Nos.39492 & 48542 of 2018 (O&M) 27 further report or reports under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C.. 54. 54. It has been propounded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the above mentioned case that after registration of FIR and commencement of investigation, registering second FIR or successive FIR in respect of the same incident and crime, and making fresh investigation, pursuant thereto, would be irregular and call for interference by High Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India or Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code or by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India under Article 136 of the Constitution of India to prevent abuse of statutory power of investigation or otherwise to secure ends of justice. 55. In the case of ‘Khimji Bhai Jadeja (supra)’, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has propounded that triple test has to be applied to decide when separate action can be treated as part of the same transaction. The above mentioned triple test is:- i) unity of purpose and design ii) proximity of time and place; and iii) continuity of action. According to the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India the above mentioned test may be applied to ascertain whether a series of act, forms part of the same transactions or not. 56. In the case of ‘Amitbhai Anilchandra (supra)’, it has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that there can be no second FIR and consequently there can be no fresh investigation on receipt of every subsequent information in respect of the same cognizable offence or the same MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.18 20:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M Nos.39492 & 48542 of 2018 (O&M) 28 occurrence or incident, giving rise to one or more cognizable offences. According to Hon’ble Supreme Court of India rather the investigating agency may investigate further upon receipt of subsequent information, normally with the leave of Magistrate/Court and where during further investigation, investigating agency collects further evidence, oral or documentary, it is obliged to forward the same with one or more supplementary reports/charge sheets to the Court. 57. In the case of ‘Babubhai (supra)’, the test of sameness has been prescribed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. In the above mentioned case there already existed two FIRs in respect of the same transactions. According to Hon’ble Supreme Court of India subsequent to registration of FIR any further complaint/second FIR in connection with the same or connected offence, relating to same incident or incidents which are part of the same transactions, is not permissible. 58. Same issue has been dealt with by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Arnab Ranjan Goswami (supra)’, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India propounded that in respect of same or connected cognizable offence, occurrence or incident as alleged in the first FIR subsequent FIR is not permissible, unless it is in form of counter claim/case. It has been specifically observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that any such subsequent FIR would constitute abuse of statutory power of investigation and therefore, liable to be quashed. 59. In the case of ‘Amish Devgan (supra)’, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed that when multiple FIRs are lodged by targeted MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.18 20:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M Nos.39492 & 48542 of 2018 (O&M) 29 groups, by way of retaliatory proceedings pertaining to the same office/incident, the information first entered in police diary must be treated as FIR under Section 154 Cr.P.C. and remaining information should be treated as statement under Section 162 Cr.P.C. 60. In the light of above mentioned principles of law if the factual matrix of the present case is analyzed, it transpires that actual grievance of private respondents No.7 to 13, and other home buyers, is that on account of the act of the petitioners No.1 and 2 (in first petition) and petitioner No.1 (in second petition) who were managing the affairs of petitioner No.2 (in second petition) the project failed, causing loss to various investors and home buyers. Since the private respondents No.7 to 13 have attributed ill motive/criminal intent (mens rea) behind the above mentioned act of the petitioners No.1 and 2 (in first petition) and petitioner No.1 (in second petition), the first round of litigation took place when FIR No.234 dated 24.12.2008 was lodged by Economic Offences Wing of Delhi police. However, the prosecution launched on the basis of above mentioned charge-sheet, prepared by the police in the above mentioned FIR, has culminated into discharge of the accused. 61. The second round of litigation with regard to same grievance at the instance of other bodies of home buyers, came into existence in the form of an FIR No.219 of 2018 and FIR No.220 of 2018, lodged by Faridabad police. However, on cancellation of above mentioned FIRs, the above mentioned round of litigation, too, has come to an end. 62. Now, in the present petition the petitioners have come forward with the apprehension that they may be subjected to another round of litigation MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.18 20:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M Nos.39492 & 48542 of 2018 (O&M) 30 at the instance of respondents No.7 to 13 or other home buyers, with regard to the same project on the basis of same set of allegations. In my opinion once three FIRs with regard to same set of allegations have already reached to their logical conclusion any other FIR or criminal prosecution, either at the instance of private respondents No.7 to 13 or any other home buyers, with regard to same grievance, cannot be entertained. Rather, such an endeavour shall amount to abuse of process of law. 63. In the present case one of the important question which has cropped up, is as to whether any effective participation on behalf of private respondents No.7 to 13 and other home buyers had taken place or not. In view of the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Khimji Bhai Jadeja (supra)’, ‘Amitbhai Anilchandra (supra)’, ‘T.T.Antony (supra)’, ‘Babubhai (supra)’, ‘Arnab Ranjan Goswami (supra)’ and ‘Amish Devgan (supra)’, once during the course of investigation in FIR No.234 of 24.12.2008, all the home buyers who had approached Economic Offences Wing, New Delhi, had participated in the investigation either as complainant or as witness, in my opinion, merely because the above mentioned prosecution failed to reach to a conclusion desired by the home buyers, does not mean that another set of home buyers are eligible to rake-up the same issue by filing separate complaints and seek registration of other FIR(s). 64. In addition to above, it is also relevant to mention here that during the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the private respondents has tried to project that the private respondents were not given opportunity of being heard in the former prosecutions, and that they had not effectively MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.18 20:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M Nos.39492 & 48542 of 2018 (O&M) 31 participated in the present proceedings. However, the above mentioned arguments does not have any force, as it is apparent on record that the private respondents either in private capacity or in representative capacity had participated in the proceedings before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in SLP No. 29729 of 2019. 65. Thus, it is hereby observed that the present petitions filed by the petitioners have got merits and deserve to be allowed. Consequently, the present petitions are hereby allowed, and a direction is hereby issued to the respondents No.1 to 4 not to take cognizance on the complaint filed by the persons who had participated in the proceedings pertaining to FIR No.234 of 2008, Police Station Economic Offences Wing, New Delhi, either as the complainant or as the witness. The respondents No.1 to 4 are also restrained from taking any coercive steps on the basis of such complaints. 66. Both the petitions stand allowed, accordingly. (SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE 10.07.2026 Manoj Bhutani Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.18 20:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document