Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Sri.Chintakayala ... vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 1 October, 2021
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
MAIN CASE No.: Crl.P. No.5476 of 2021
PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl. Office
DATE ORDER
No Note
1. 01.10.2021 CMR, J
8
I.A.No.1 of 2021
Dispensed with for the present.
________
CMR, J
Crl.P. No.5476 of 2021
Learned Public Prosecutor takes notice for 1st
respondent / State and requests time to file counter-
affidavit.
Issue notice to 2nd respondent returnable in four
(04) weeks.
________
CMR, J
I.A.No.2 of 2021
The petitioner is sole accused in Crime No.217 of
2021 of Nekarekal Police Station, Guntur District. A case
under Sections 188, 270, 504, 505 (2), 509 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (for short "I.P.C."), under Section 51(b)
of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 (for short "D.M.
Act") and under Section 3 (1) (r) of the Scheduled Castes
and Schedules Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
(for short "S.C. and S.T. Act") was registered against him.
The petitioner primarily seek quash of the F.I.R. on
two grounds. Firstly, it is contended that on the basis of
the same allegations, police have already registered a
case in Crime No.216 of 2021 under Sections 153(a), 505,
504 and 501 of I.P.C. of Nekarekal Police Station and
again on the basis of the same allegations, the present
F.I.R. came to be registered on the report lodged by
another person adding the offences punishable under
Sections 188, 270, 505 (2) and 509 of I.P.C., under Section
51(b) of D.M. Act and under Section 3(1)(r) of S.C. and
S.T. Act. Nextly, it is contended that the facts of the case
and the allegations set out in the F.I.R. do not even
constitute any offences under the aforesaid sections of
law, for which the second F.I.R. was registered.
As can be seen from the copy of the earlier F.I.R.
which is now produced in Crime No.216 of 2021 of
Nekarekal Police Station, it is evident that on the basis of
the same allegations which are now made in the present
F.I.R. in Crime No.217 of 2021 of Nekarekal Police
Station, that already an F.I.R. was registered by the same
police in Crime No.216 of 2021. The fact that the earlier
F.I.R. was registered in Crime No.216 of 2021 on the basis
of the same allegations which are now mentioned in the
present F.I.R. in Crime No.217 of 2021, is also not
disputed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on
behalf of the prosecution.
It is now well settled law that multiple F.I.Rs
cannot be registered on the basis of the same allegations,
when already one F.I.R. was registered in connection
with the similar allegations. The Honourable Apex Court
in the case of T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala and others1,
clearly held that -
"...... it happens not infrequently that more
information than one are given to a police officer
in charge of a police station in respect of the
same incident involving one or more than one
cognizable offences...."
And also held that -
(2001) 6 SCC 181
".....No such information/statement can
properly be treated as F.I.R. and entered in the
station house diary again, as it would in effect be
a second F.I.R. and the same cannot be in
conformity with the scheme of Cr.P.C......"
The Honourable Apex Court in another Judgment
in the case of Babubhai v. State of Gujarat and others2,
held that registration of two F.I.Rs in respect of the same
transaction, is not permissible.
In another case in Arnab Ranjan Goswami v.
Union of India and others3, the Honourable Apex Court
recently held that registration of subsequent F.I.R. in
respect of the same or connected cognizable offence,
occurrence or instance, as alleged in the first F.I.R., is not
permissible under law.
Thus, in view of the clear law annunciated in the
above cited Judgments of the Honourable Apex Court,
the present F.I.R. which is a second F.I.R. registered in
Crime No.217 of 2021 is clearly unsustainable under law.
As regards the second contention that the facts of
the case do not constitute any such offences for which the
present F.I.R. is registered is concerned, registration of
F.I.R. for the offence under Section 188 of I.P.C. is clearly
hit by the bar contained in Section 195 (1) of Cr.P.C.
There is no complaint lodged by the concerned officer,
whose directions are stated to be violated.
As regards the offence under Section 270 of I.P.C.
is concerned, there is absolutely no allegation in the F.I.R.
that the petitioner has committed any act malignantly to
spread infection of disease dangerous to life. Mere
(2010) 12 SCC 254
(2020) 14 SCC 12
participation in the meeting organized by some others
would not by itself amount to commission of offence
punishable under Section 270 of I.P.C.
As regards the offence under Section 505 (2) of
I.P.C. is concerned, the alleged comments made must be
in relation to creation of ill-feelings between two groups
on the ground of religion, caste, nativity etc. There is no
such allegation in the F.I.R. to constitute any such offence.
Regarding the offence under Section 509 of I.P.C. is
concerned, there is no allegation in the F.I.R. that any act
was committed by the petitioner against any woman with
an intention to insult her. Therefore, prima facie no
offence under Section 509 of I.P.C. is constituted from the
facts of the case.
As regards Section 51(b) of D.M. Act is concerned,
Section 60 of the D.M. Act mandates that no court shall
take cognizance of an offence under the said Act except
on a complaint made by any person who has given
notice. So, the said offence is also hit by Section 60 of
D.M. Act. Regarding the offence under Section 3 (1) (r) of
S.C. and S.T. Act is concerned, there is no allegation in
the F.I.R. that the petitioner has resorted to commission
of any such offence.
As regards the offence under Section 504 of I.P.C.
is concerned, since the previous F.I.R. was already
registered for the said offence, registration of the second
F.I.R. for the said offence is not legally permissible.
Therefore, in view of the above, the petitioner
could make out a strong prima facie case warranting
interference of this Court to examine in the main criminal
petition whether launching of criminal prosecution
against the petitioner in the given facts and circumstances
of the case, is legally sustainable or not and whether the
F.I.R. that is now registered against the petitioner is liable
to be quashed or not.
Therefore, in the said facts and circumstances of
the case, as discussed above, there shall be stay of further
proceedings pursuant to registration of F.I.R. in Crime
No.217 of 2021 of Nekarekal Police Station, including
taking coercive steps like arrest etc., against the
petitioner, till the next date of hearing.
________
CMR, J
ARR
