Telangana High Court
K. Mathamma vs The State Of Telangana And 9 Others on 4 October, 2021
Bench: K.Lakshman
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT: HYDERABAD
CORAM:
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
+ WRIT PETITION No.22037 OF 2021
% Delivered on: 04-10-2021
Between:
# Smt. K. Mathamma W/o Naveen Kumar Chintapandu .. Petitioner
Vs.
$ The State of Telangana, rep by its Principal
Secretary for Home, Hyderabad & others .. Respondents
! For Petitioner : Mr. Kalyan Dilip Sunkara
^ For Respondents : Mr. T. Srikanth Reddy
Learned Govt. Pleader for Home
< Gist :
> Head Note :
? Cases Referred :
1. (2014) 8 SCC 273
2. 2018 (4) ALD 180
3. (2018) 4 SCC 579
4. (2020) 5 SCC 378
5. AIR 2021 SC 1381
6. Crl.P. No.3446 of 2021, decided on 14.06.2021
7. (2013) 5 SCC 148
8. (2020) 14 SCC 12
9. (1997) 1 SCC 416
10. C.C. No.1179 of 2019, decided on 24.01.2020
11. (2012) 1 MWN (Crl.) 4
`
2
KL,J
W.P.No.22037 of 2021
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
WRIT PETITION No.22037 OF 2021
ORDER:
Heard Mr. Kalyan Dilip Sunkara, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Mr. T. Srikanth Reddy, learned Government Pleader for Home
appearing on behalf of the respondents.
2. This writ petition is filed to declare the action of the
respondents in registering multiple FIRs arising out of the same cause of
action against the husband of the petitioner as illegal; for a consequential
direction to the respondent police to refrain from registering further FIRs
against the husband of the petitioner; for treating any existing or future
FIRs or complaints made by persons in relation to the actions forming
part of the investigation under one FIR as additional witness statements.
3. FACTS:
i) The petitioner herein is the wife of Mr. Naveen Kumar
Chintapandu, alias Teen Mar Mallanna, a Free-press Journalist.
ii) The husband of the petitioner is running a You Tube Channel
named 'Q' News. As part of his activities, he conducts interviews and
discussions with several prominent persons, who express their views on
different issues, such as politics, economics and society, and uploads
them on You Tube.
iii) A case in Crime No.197 of 2021 was registered by the
Chilkalguda Police Station, Hyderabad against the husband of the
petitioner on 22.04.2021 for the offences under Sections - 387 and 504 of
`
KL,J
W.P.No.22037 of 2021
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') on the allegation that he
had threatened the de facto complainant, an Astrologer (Sri Lakshmikant
Sarma) and demanded an amount of Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty
Lakhs Only), failing which, the husband of the petitioner herein would
spread false news about the Astrologer on Social-media Platforms.
iv) A notice under Section - 41A of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') was issued and the husband of the
petitioner had complied with the same.
v) The respondent police have registered 35 crimes against the
husband of the petitioner in different police stations for offences under
various provisions of Law.
4. CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
i) The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that after a
lapse of four (04) months, without there-being any fresh material
whatsoever, the Investigating Officer in Crime No.197 of 2021 added
Section - 306 read with Section 511 of the IPC to the aforesaid offences.
ii) The police authorities in connivance with political rivals and
complainants have registered multiple crimes against the husband of the
petitioner based on the same cause of action only to harass him. His
implication in criminal cases is only political witch-hunting and arm
twisting to stop him from engaging in the free-press.
`
KL,J
W.P.No.22037 of 2021
iii) The husband of the petitioner was arrested on 28.08.2021. IN
recent past 8 crimes were registered against the husband of the petitioner,
5 crimes were registered for abusing the Chief Minister of Telangana
State and 3 crimes for using der4ogqatory and abusive language against
the Inspector of Police, Chilkalguda Police Station with respect to the
allegations from very same cause of action.
iv) All 35 crimes were registered against the husband of the
petitioner at different police stations of Telangana State for different
offences on the complaints lodged by different de facto complainants.
v) Registration of multiple FIRs on the same allegations which
arise out of the same cause of action is impermissible. Registration of
multiple FIRs violates Articles - 19 (1) (a) and 21 of the Constitution of
India. It is also violative of the procedure laid down under the Cr.P.C.
and also contrary to the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court and this Court in a catena of judgments. It is a vindictive attitude.
vi) With the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel sought a
direction against the respondent police to refrain them from registering
further FIRs against the husband of the petitioner.
5. CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS:
i) Referring to the contents of the counter affidavit sworn-in by
respondent No.3 for himself and on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2, the
learned Government Pleader for Home would contend that as far as the
Hyderabad Police Commissionerate is concerned, there are no crimes
`
KL,J
W.P.No.22037 of 2021
registered against the petitioner herein. However, against her husband,
eight crimes have been registered. The details of the same were
specifically mentioned in the counter. Out of eight crimes, five crimes
were registered for using the derogatory language against the Chief
Minister and the remaining crimes were registered for using derogatory
and abusive language against the Inspector of Police, Chilkalguda Police
Station. Out of five crimes registered against the husband of the
petitioner for using the derogatory language against the Chief Minister,
four crimes were closed after obtaining necessary permission from the
concerned Assistant Commissioners of Police as it would amount to
double jeopardy, and only one Crime No.1428 of 2021 is under
investigation with Cyber Crimes Police Station, Hyderabad.
ii) He would further contend that as far as three crimes registered
against the husband of the petitioner for using abusive and derogatory
language against the Inspector of Police, Chilkalguda Police Station,
Crime No.268 of 2021 of Kachiguda Police Station, was closed on
06.09.2021 and Crime No.283 of 2021 of Chatrinaka Police Station was
closed on 10.09.2021 after obtaining necessary permission from the
concerned Assistant Commissioners of Police on the ground of mistake
of fact / double jeopardy. Now, only one Crime No.274 of 2021 of
Gandhi Nagar Police Station is pending and is under investigation.
iii) Out of 34 crimes registered against the husband of the
petitioner, only 21 crimes relate to Hyderabad Police Commissionerate
and the remaining 13 cases were registered at other Units, which were
`
KL,J
W.P.No.22037 of 2021
specifically mentioned in a tabular form annexed to the counter. The said
crimes were registered on various dates and on different allegations.
Therefore, the allegation of the petitioner that the Police Authorities have
registered multiple FIRs against the husband of the petitioner with regard
to the very same allegations arising out of the same cause of action is
false and contrary to record. The allegations are different, cause of action
is different, the complainants and the allegations made therein are
different. Thus, the registration of multiple FIRs is permissible.
iv) In the above said crimes, Investigating Officers have been
conducting investigation in a fair and transparent manner. If the
punishment prescribed for the offences alleged against the husband of the
petitioner is seven years and below seven years, the Investigating
Officers have already issued notices under section - 41A of the Cr.P.C.,
strictly following the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar1. Thus, there is no illegality or
irregularity in registering the crimes against the husband of the petitioner.
v) With the said submissions, the learned Government Pleader
sought to dismiss the writ petition.
6. ANALYSIS AND FINDING OF THE COURT:
i) The above said rival submissions would reveal that the main
grievance of the petitioner herein is that the registration of multiple FIRs
with regard to the very same allegations arising out of the very same
. (2014) 8 SCC 273
`
KL,J
W.P.No.22037 of 2021
cause of action is impermissible. The lis involved in the present writ
petition is no longer res integra.
ii) A Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at
Hyderabad for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh in Jakir
Hussain Kosangi v. State of Andhra Pradesh2 made a research with
regard to maintainability of Second FIR. Referring to the facts and
principles laid down in 21 judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, right
from Ram Lal Narang v. State [(1979) 2 SCC 322] to Yanab Sheikh
@ Gagu v. State of West Bengal [(2013) 6 SCC 428], the principle laid
down by the learned Single Judge and facts in Akbaruddin Owaisi v.
Government of Andhra Pradesh [2013 (6) ALT 101] it was held that
registration of second FIR and investigation of the same is maintainable
on certain facts.
iii) Referring to the principle laid down in Jakir Hussain
Kosangi2,P. Sreekumar v. State of Kerala3, Samta Naidu v. State of
Madhya Pradesh4 and Krishna Lal Chawla v. State of U.P.5, this
Courtin Jakka Vinod Kumar Reddy v. The State of Telangana6held
that there is no embargo for registration of two FIRs on the following
circumstances/grounds:
. 2018 (4) ALD 180
. (2018) 4 SCC 579
. (2020) 5 SCC 378
. AIR 2021 SC 1381
. Crl.P. No.3446 of 2021, decided on 14.06.2021
`
KL,J
W.P.No.22037 of 2021
(a) where the allegations made in both the FIRs are from
different spectrum, where there are different versions from
different persons;
(b) same set of facts may constitute different offences;
(c) where there are two distinct offences having different
ingredients;
(d) where the allegations are different and distinct;
(e) when there are rival versions in respect of same episode, they
would normally take shape of two different FIRs and
investigation can be carried out under both of them by the
same Investigating Agency.
This Court further held that the Court, which is examining the
permissibility of registration of second FIR has to consider whether there
is any substance in the allegations and whether there are overlapping
features in both the complaints. The Court has to further consider the
truth of 'sameness' and that whether the allegations are different and
distinct. If the allegations in both the complaints are same between same
persons, then registration of second FIR is not maintainable.
iv) In Surender Kaushik v. State of UP7 the Apex Court held that
there cannot be two FIRs against the same person in respect of the same
case, but when there are rival versions in respect of the same episode,
they would normally take the shape of two different FIRs and
. (2013) 5 SCC 148
`
KL,J
W.P.No.22037 of 2021
investigation can be carried out under both of them by the same
investigating agency.
v) In Arnab Ranjan Goswami v. the Union of India8, the Apex
Court held that multiple FIRs arising out of same cause of action against
Journalist in question is violative of fundamental rights. It further held
that no subsequent FIR in respect of same or connected cognizable
offence, occurrence or incident as alleged in the first FIR can be
registered, unless it is in the form of counter claim / case. As such the
subsequent FIR would constitute abuse of statutory power of
investigation.
vi) In view of the said principles laid down by the Apex Court and
this Court, coming to the facts of the case on hand, as per the contents of
the counter affidavit, 35 crimes were registered against the husband of
the petitioner, out of which, two crimes were registered in the year 2018,
two (2) crimes were registered in the year 2019, thirteen (13) crimes were
registered in 2020 and eighteen (18) crimes were registered in the current
year. There is no dispute that the husband of the petitioner is a Free-
press Journalist and he is running a You Tube Channel in the name and
style 'Q' News. According to the petitioner, as a part of being a Free-
press Journalist, her husband has been conducting interviews, panel
discussions and news items on different issues including political, social
and economic etc. It is his freedom of expression guaranteed under
Article - 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution of India. The police authorities in
. (2020) 14 SCC 12
`
KL,J
W.P.No.22037 of 2021
connivance with political leaders and complainants registered the above
said 35 crimes against the husband of the petitioner on the very same
allegations arising out of same cause of action which is impermissible.
vii) In view of the above said submission, this Court thought it apt
to refer the said 35 crimes registered against the husband of the petitioner
herein in a tabular form, which is as under:
S. Crime Name of Nature of Remarks
Name of PS Offences
No. No. complainant Allegation
67 IT Act, Abusive and Notice
505(2), derogatory U/Sec.41A of
1 1428/21 Cyber Crime, 505(1) (b), Dinesh comments against Cr.P.C. not
Hyderabad 504, 506 & Chowdary Hon'ble CM of TS served
189 IPC
504 & 505 Vattikuti Rama -do- Closed
2 207/21 Nallakunta IPC Rao
504 & 506
3 429/21 Jubilee Hills IPC Madasu Raviteja -do- Closed
504 & 505 -do-
4 282/21 Chatrinaka IPC P.Radhakrishna Closed
504 & 505
5 176/21 Mirchowk IPC Rashid Shareef -do- Closed
505 (2), Threat to Inspector Notice
505(1) (c), of Police U/Sec.41A of
6 274/21 Gandhinagar 189 & 504 & N Prakash Chilkalguda PS Cr.P.C. not
506 IPC served
505 (2),
505(1) (c), -do- Closed
7 268/21 Kachiguda 189, 504 & J. Bhargava
506 IPC
505(2),
505(1) (C),
8 283/21 Chatrinaka -do-
189 & 504 N.Laxman Closed
IPC
Provocation of
505(2), 504 DVS Bhima public and threat to
9 251/21 Jawharnagar & 506 IPC Narayana Hon'ble Labour --
Minister of TS
Threat &
Notice U/S.41A
10 364/21 RGIA Airport 503 IPC Y.Prakash Reddy defamation of of Cr.P.C. served
Inspector
`
KL,J
W.P.No.22037 of 2021
Extortion of money Under
386 r/w 34
11 125/21 Yedpally Jayavardhan from Toddy shop Investigation
IPC
Goud owner (U/I)
Extortion of money Arrested on
12 197/21 Cyber Crime 387 & 504 Laxmikanth from 28.08.2021
IPC Sharma astrologer
Threat to U/I & PT
323,341,506 complainant in the Warrant executed
13 730/21 Jagathgirigutta & 120(B) r/w D.Sampath above case in on 31.08.2021
34 IPC Reddy conspiracy with
other people.
186, 353, 506 Obstruction of the PT Warrant
14 553/21 Medipally & 147 r/w S. Srinivas Rao duty of public executed on
149 IPC servant 08-09-2021
341,353 & Obstruction of the U/I & PT
15 539/21 Medipally 506 r/w 34 B. Shekhar duty of public Warrant executed
IPC servant on 08/09/2021
67 IT Act, Cyber stalking and U/I & PT
16 1323/21 Cyber Crime 417,506,509 Jamalpur harassment over Warrant
& 354 IPC. Priyanka social media Executed on
01.09.2021
506 of IPC
Sec.3(1)(r)(s), Threat and criminal PT Warrant
17 573/21 Medipally 3(2), (Va) of Nyatha Ashok intimidation in the executed on
SC/ ST Act name of caste. 09-09-2021
417,420,465, Forgery, cheating U/I & Notice U/S
18 471/21 Chilkalguda 568 & 471 B Srinivas Rao by producing fake 41A not served
IPC covid-19 certificate
504, Abusive and
505(1)(c), derogatory
330/20 PT vide CC No.
19 Jubilee Hills 505(2) & 506 Syed Moin comments against
8267/2020
IPC the Hon'ble CM of
TS.
505 (1) (b),
505 (2), 504 Rowthu Gopi -do- PT vide CC
20 359/20 Panjagutta & 506 IPC No.7029/2020
21 1102/20 Cyber Crime 505(1)(b) & Gellu Srinivas -do- PT vide
505(2) IPC Yadav 8087/2020
505(1) (b),
506 & 188 Creating panic in
G. Pandu Goud U/I & Collection
22 268/20 Cyber Crime IPC, 66C IT people with regard
of Evidence
Act and 54 to corona virus.
DMA
505(1) (C),
506 IPC, 54 PT vide CC
23 343/20 Jubilee Hills DMA Syed Zubair -do- 8257/2020
Charged on
505 (1) (b) &. 29.07.2020 vide
24 1177/20 Cyber Crime 188 IPC and B.Ramesh -do-
SR No 692/2020
Sec 54 DMA and CC awaited
`
KL,J
W.P.No.22037 of 2021
153, 153 (A)
(c), 504 & False allegation PT vide
25 190/20 Armoor Paska Narsaiah
505 (2) IPC against Armoor, CC.90/2021
MLA
153,153(a), -do-
26 78/20 Nandipet 504 & 505(2) Mooda Mahender Action Dropped
IPC
Abusive and
derogatory
504 & 505 PT vide CC
27 149/20 KPHB Colony B.Ramachandriah comments against
IPC 1583/2020
Detective Inspector
KPHB
forgery and
defamation of Ex- Charged on
28 2005/20 Cyber Crime 469, 509 & S. Parshuram M.P. Mrs. 16-08-2021 vide
505 (2) IPC K.Kavitha by S.R. 4486/2021,
uploading false CC awaited
images.
505 (1) (b), G. Defamation of U/I & Notice
29 2304/20 Cyber Crime Chandra Hon'ble CM of TS
505 (2) & Mohan U/s.41A not
504 IPC by circulation of served
false news.
Circulation of false
30 612/20 Cyber Crime 504 & 505(2) P. Narender news regarding PT vide CC
IPC Reddy Corona 8477/2021
67 IT Act, Abuse and Charged on
505(1)(b), Md. Abdul derogatory 27.09.2020 vide
31 1096/20 Cyber Crime
505(2), 504 Saleem language against SR 692/2020 &
and 506 IPC Hon'ble CM of TS CC awaited
341,186 & Dr.Pentaiah Violation of Model
32 256/19 Huzur Nagar 188 IPC and Code of Conduct in PT vide CC
30 of Police Elections 414/2021
Act
341,186 Violation of Model
Mellacheruvu &188 IPC Code of Conduct in PT vide CC
33 155/19 Venkatiah
and 30 of Elections 662/2021
Police Act
Hurting Sentiments
G. Srinvas of Brahmins by PT vide CC
34 80/18 Chikadpally 505(2) IPC Charyulu airing program on 2418/2019
Electronic Media
Spreading False
35 128/18 Narayankhed 504 & 171(G) news against TRS U/I & PT vide
IPC Geeta Reddy Candidate in during CC 37/2019
election time.
viii) During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the
petitioner would submit that the respondent police have arrested the
husband of the petitioner on 28.08.2021. After securing bail, the police
are arresting him again under the guise of execution of PT Warrant in
`
KL,J
W.P.No.22037 of 2021
another case, due to which, the husband of the petitioner is not in a
position to come out and he would be in judicial custody. Thus, the
action of the respondent police is vindictive and it amounts to violation
of Articles - 19 (1) (a) and 21 of the Constitution of India apart from
being contrary to the procedure laid down under the Cr.P.C.
ix) Article - 19 of the Constitution of India deals with the
protection of rights involving freedom of speech, etc. Article - 19 (1) (a)
deals with freedom of speech and expression. Article - 21 deals with right
to life and personal liberty.
x) The Apex Court in Arnab Ranjan Goswami8 had an occasion
to deal with the fundamental right enshrined in Article - 19 (1) (a) of the
Constitution of India and held in paragraph 38 as follows:
"38. Article 32 of the Constitution constitutes a
recognition of the constitutional duty entrusted to this
Court to protect the fundamental rights of citizens.
The exercise of journalistic freedom lies at the core of
speech and expression protected by Article
19(1)(a). The petitioner is a media journalist. The
airing of views on television shows which he hosts is
in the exercise of his fundamental right to speech and
expression under Article 19(1)(a). India‟s freedoms
will rest safe as long as journalists can speak truth to
power without being chilled by a threat of reprisal.
The exercise of that fundamental right is not absolute
and is answerable to the legal regime enacted with
reference to the provisions of Article 19(2). But to
allow a journalist to be subjected to multiple
complaints and to the pursuit of remedies traversing
`
KL,J
W.P.No.22037 of 2021
multiple states and jurisdictions when faced with
successive FIRs and complaints bearing the same
foundation has a stifling effect on the exercise of that
freedom. This will effectively destroy the freedom of
the citizen to know of the affairs of governance in the
nation and the right of the journalist to ensure an
informed society. Our decisions hold that the right of
a journalist under Article 19(1)(a) is no higher than
the right of the citizen to speak and express. But we
must as a society never forget that one cannot exist
without the other. Free citizens cannot exist when the
news media is chained to adhere to one position.
Yuval Noah Harari has put it succinctly in his recent
book titled "21 Lessons for the 21st Century":
"Questions you cannot answer are usually far better
for you than answers you cannot question."
It further held that the balance has to be drawn between the exercise of a
fundamental right under Article - 19(1)(a) and the investigation for an
offence under the Cr.P.C. All other FIRs in respect of the same incident
constitute a clear abuse of process and must be quashed.
xi) The Apex Court referring to its earlier judgments including the
judgment in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala (2001 Cri.L.J. 3329),
Upkar Singh v. Vedprakash [(2004) 13 SCC 292] and Bahubhai v.
State of Gujarat [(2010) 12 SCC 254] further held that registration of
successive FIRs / complaints founded on the same cause of action is
impermissible. No other FIR or, as the case may be, complaint shall be
initiated or pursued in any other forum in respect of the same cause of
`
KL,J
W.P.No.22037 of 2021
action. Any other FIRs or complaints in respect of the same cause of
action held to be not maintainable.
xii) As discussed above, respondent No.3 in its counter
specifically contended that eight crimes have been registered against the
husband of the petitioner for using derogatory language against Chief
Minister and out of which five crimes were closed after obtaining
necessary permission from the concerned Assistant Commissioners of
Police as it would amount to double jeopardy. It is also specifically
mentioned that three crimes were registered against him for using
abusive language against the Inspector of Police, Chilkalguda Police
Station out of which two crimes were closed on the ground of mistake of
fact / double jeopardy, and one is under investigation.
xiii) As discussed above, as on today, the respondent police have
registered 35 crimes against the husband of the petitioner out of which,
18 crimes were registered during the 2021, out of which, one crime was
registered in the months of March, April and September, 2021 each; three
crimes were registered in the month of July, 2021 and 12 crimes were
registered in the month of August, 2021, whereas, 13 crimes were
registered during 2020. The statement filed by respondent No.3 along
with the counter would reveal that in some of the cases, PT warrants are
pending against the petitioner's husband. This would reveal that the
respondent police are not using the available technology to stop multiple
registrations of FIRs, though they have Apps called as TSCOP, Crime,
`
KL,J
W.P.No.22037 of 2021
Criminal Track Net Work System (CCTNS) and Intra Net Option (INO).
CCTNS is a plan scheme conceived in the light of experience of a non-
plan scheme namely - Common Integrated Police Application (CIPA).
CCTNS is a Mission Mode Project under the National e-Governance
Plan (NeGP) of Govt. of India. CCTNS aims at creating a comprehensive
and integrated system for enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of
policing through adopting of principle of e-Governance and creation of a
nationwide networking infrastructure for evolution of IT-enabled-state-
of-the-art tracking system around 'Investigation of crime and detection of
criminals'. The objectives of the Scheme can broadly be listed as (a)
Make the Police functioning citizen friendly and more transparent by
automating the functioning of Police Stations; (b) improve delivery of
citizen-centric services through effective usage of ICT; (c) provide the
Investigating Officers of the Civil Police with tools, technology and
information to facilitate investigation of crime and detection of criminals
(d) improve Police functioning in various other areas such as Law and
Order, Traffic Management etc.; (e) facilitate Interaction and sharing of
Information among Police Stations, Districts, State/UT headquarters and
other Police Agencies; (f) assist senior Police Officers in better
management of Police Force; (g) keep track of the progress of Cases,
including in Courts; and (h) reduce manual and redundant Records
keeping. The respondent police can use the technology through the said
Apps either for closing FIRs or treating the second FIRs if registered on
the same incident / allegation out of same cause of action as a statement
`
KL,J
W.P.No.22037 of 2021
under Section - 162 of the Cr.P.C. as held in Akbaruddin Owaisi
(Supra). It is also relevant to note that there is an App called ICJS (Inter-
operable Criminal Justice System) and CIS (Case Information System).
The ICJS is a bridge between the CIS and the CCTNS/TSCOP by using
the said technology. The respondent police can take steps in accordance
with law to avoid registration of multiple crimes and close the same
thereafter, as was done in the present case to avoid the blame of
vindictive attitude on their part.
xiv) It is relevant to note that column No.13 of every FIR is with
regard to 'action taken' which includes registration of crime, taking up
investigation, refusal to take up investigation due to a particular reason
etc. Therefore, the police can avail the same.
xv) The crimes mentioned in the above tabular form would reveal
that most of the crimes registered in the current year relate to almost
same allegations i.e., using abusive and derogatory language against the
Chief Minister, his son, daughter and other Ministers in the News items
posted in the said You Tube Channel. Most of the cases registered in the
year 2020 also relate to the same allegations. It is his fundamental right
enshrined in Article - 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution of India. However,
the said fundamental right is having its own limitations under Article - 19
(2). The counter along with the statement annexed thereto by respondent
No.3 would reveal that the respondent police are not allowing the
husband of the petitioner to be released on bail. If he is released on bail
`
KL,J
W.P.No.22037 of 2021
in one case, the police are arresting him in other case on the ground of
execution of PT Warrant.
xvi) It is relevant to note that in most of the cases except one or
two, the punishment prescribed for the offences alleged against the
husband of the petitioner is seven years and below seven years. The
police have to necessarily follow the procedure laid down under Section -
41A of the Cr.P.C. and the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in
Arnesh Kumar1.
xvii) There is specific allegation against the respondent police that
they are not following the arrest principles laid down by the Apex Court
in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal9, wherein the Apex Court laid
down certain guidelines for arresting an accused. The police have to
follow such guidelines and also the guidelines issued Arnesh Kumar1,
otherwise it amounts to Contempt of Court. A learned Judge of this
Court in a judgment in Ramadugu Omkar Varma v. Ashok Naik10
convicted a Police Officer for not following the procedure laid down
under Section - 41A of the Cr.P.C. and the guidelines issued by the Apex
Court in Arnesh Kumar1 for a period of four (04) weeks.
xviii) The above stated facts would also reveal that the husband of
the petitioner is kept in dark. He does not know how many cases are
pending against him and how many PT warrants are issued / pending
against him. Virtually, the respondent police are not allowing him to be
. (1997) 1 SCC 416
. C.C. No.1179 of 2019, decided on 24.01.2020
`
KL,J
W.P.No.22037 of 2021
released on bail. As discussed above, in almost all the cases, punishment
prescribed for the offences alleged therein is seven years and below
seven years. Therefore, the police have to necessarily follow the
procedure laid down under Section - 41A of the Cr.P.C. and the
guidelines issued by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar1, otherwise, it
amounts to violation of fundamental rights of the husband of the
petitioner as guaranteed under Articles - 19 (1) (a) and 21 of the
Constitution of India. Therefore, it is the duty of the respondent police to
inform the husband of the petitioner about the pendency of crimes
registered against him and PT warrant so as to avoid a situation, like in
the present case. There is a specific allegation against the respondent
police that they are registering several cases against the husband of the
petitioner and arresting him in the said cases one after the other in
violation of the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar1
and also the procedure laid down under Section - 41A of the Cr.P.C.
xix) The Telangana State Police is trying to gain the confidence of
people of Telangana by using technology, construction of twin-towers,
installation of CCTV Cameras etc., in conducting investigation
effectively. They have also introduced SHE TEAMS to arrest crime
against women. They have been adopting 'friendly police'. It is highly
appreciable. But, at the same time, they have to refrain from registration
of multiple crimes against an individual, like the one in the present case,
which will damage their reputation and it will lead to loosing of
confidence of the people.
`
KL,J
W.P.No.22037 of 2021
xx) In State v. K.N. Nehru11, the Full-Bench of the Madras High
Court had elaborately dealt with the procedure to be followed while
executing PT warrants. The relevant observations are as under:
"42. From the above discussions, the following
conclusions emerge:-
1). When an accused is involved in more than one case and
has been remanded to judicial custody in connection with
one case, there is no legal compulsion for the Investigating
Officer in the other case to effect a formal arrest of the
accused. He has got discretion either to arrest or not to
arrest the accused in the latter case. The police officer
shall not arrest the accused in a mechanical fashion. He
can resort to arrest only if there are grounds and need to
arrest.
2). If the Investigating Officer in the latter case decides to
arrest the accused, he can go over to the prison where the
accused is already in judicial remand in connection with
some other case and effect a formal arrest as held in
Anupam Kulkarni case. When such a formal arrest is
effected in prison, the accused does not come into the
physical custody of the police at all, instead, he continues
to be in judicial custody in connection with the other case.
Therefore, there is no legal compulsion for the production
of the accused before the Magistrate within 24 hours from
the said formal arrest.
3). For the production of the accused before the Court after
such formal arrest, the police officer shall make an
application before the Jurisdictional Magistrate for
issuance of P.T.Warrant without delay. If the conditions
required in Section 267 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
are satisfied, the Magistrate shall issue P.T. Warrant for
the production of the accused on or before a specified date
. (2012) 1 MWN (Crl.) 4
`
KL,J
W.P.No.22037 of 2021
before the Magistrate. When the accused is so transmitted
from prison and produced before the Jurisdictional
Magistrate in pursuance of the P.T.Warrant, it will be
lawful for the police officer to make a request to the
learned Magistrate for authorising the detention of the
accused either in police custody or in judicial custody.
4). After considering the said request, the representation of
the accused and after perusing the case diary and other
relevant materials, the learned Magistrate shall pass
appropriate orders under Section 167(1) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure.
5). If the police officer decides not to effect formal arrest,
it will be lawful for him to straightaway make an
application to the Jurisdictional Magistrate for issuance of
P.T.Warrant for transmitting the accused from prison
before him for the purpose of remand. On such request, if
the Magistrate finds that the requirements of Section
267 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are satisfied, he
shall issue P.T.Warrant for the production of the accused
on or before a specified date.
6). When the accused is so transmitted and produced
before the Magistrate in pursuance of the P.T.Warrant
from prison, the police officer will be entitled to make a
request to the Magistrate for authorising the detention of
the accused either in police custody or in judicial custody.
On such request, after following the procedure indicated
above, the Magistrate shall pass appropriate orders either
remanding the accused either to judicial custody or police
custody under Section 167(1) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure or dismissing the request after recording the
reasons.
7). Before the accused is transmitted and produced before
the Court in pursuance of a P.T.Warrant in connection
with a latter case, if he has been ordered to be released in
connection with the former case, the jail authority shall set
`
KL,J
W.P.No.22037 of 2021
him at liberty and return the P.T.Warrant to the Magistrate
making necessary endorsement and if only the accused
continues to be in judicial custody, in connection with the
former case, he can be transmitted in pursuance of
P.T.Warrant in connection with the latter case.
xxi) In view of the discussion supra, the action of respondent
police in registration of multiple crimes with regard to the very same
allegation, closing the same on the ground that it amounts to double
jeopardy, obtaining PT warrants and execution of the same depriving the
right of husband of the petitioner to obtain bail. Bail is a rule and jail is
an exception.
7. CONCLUSION:
i) In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case,
considering the fact that several cases have been registered against the
husband of the petitioner at various police stations of Telangana State,
this Court is of the considered view to issue the following directions to
the respondent police, more particularly to respondent No.2, the Director
General of Police, Telangana State.
(a) Respondent Police are directed to refrain from registration
of multiple crimes on the same allegations and they shall
consider the truth of sameness;
(b) If there is more than one crime pending against the husband
of the petitioner in respect of the very same allegation
arising out of the same cause of action, respondent police
shall conduct investigation in one crime and treat the other
crimes as statements under Section - 162 of the Cr.P.C.;
`
KL,J
W.P.No.22037 of 2021
(c) Respondent No.2 shall personally supervise the
investigation in respect of the crimes pending against the
husband of the petitioner;
(d) He is directed to furnish the information either to the
petitioner or her husband with regard to pendency of cases
against him and issuance / pendency of PT warrants against
him and also issuance of Bailable/Non-Bailable Warrants
within one (01) week from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order under proper acknowledgment;
(e) He has to consider the allegations made against the husband
of the petitioner in all thirty five (35) crimes pending against
him, and if there is any registration of multiple crimes in
respect of the same allegations arising out of the same cause
of action, he shall give necessary instructions to the
concerned Investigating Officers to close such crimes, treat
the same as statements under Section - 162 of the Cr.P.C.;
(f) In the above crimes mentioned in the tabular form where the
punishment prescribed is seven years and below seven
years, the concerned Investigating Officers shall strictly
follow the procedure laid down under Section - 41A of the
Cr.P.C. and also the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in
Arnesh Kumar1, failing which it amounts to contempt of
Court and they are liable for punishment;
(g) Respondent police shall follow the directions issued by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in D.K. Bose9 while arresting the
husband of the petitioner and while executing PT warrant in
K.N. Nehru11;
(h) The respondent police are further directed not to resort any
vindictive attitude towards the husband of the petitioner.
They are further directed not to harass the petitioner and her
`
KL,J
W.P.No.22037 of 2021
husband in any manner under the guise of investigation in
any of the crimes that are pending against him. However,
the petitioner and her husband shall co-operate with the
respondent police by submitting necessary information in
concluding the investigation in the aforesaid crimes;
(i) Liberty is also granted to the husband of the petitioner to
move regular/anticipatory bail applications before the
concerned Magistrates and also to file applications to recall
NBWs./BWs, if any, pending against him on receipt of
information from the respondent police;
(j) However, the learned Magistrates concerned, before whom
the respondent police produces the husband of the petitioner
shall verify the contents of the complaints, allegations made
therein and whether offences alleged against him are
bailable or non-bailable. Whether the police have followed
the procedure laid down under Section - 41A of the Cr.P.C.
while deciding the bail applications;
(k) Respondent No.2 shall issue necessary instructions to all the
Station House Officers to utilize the latest technology / Apps
viz., ICJS (Inter-operable Criminal Justice System), CIS
(Case Information System); CCTNS, TSCOP and Intranet
etc., while registering the crimes and while conducting
investigation against the husband of the petitioner or any
other accused in the State of Telangana;
(l) The Investigating Officers shall conduct investigation in a
fair and transparent manner;
ii) With the above directions / observations, the present Writ
Petition is disposed of;
`
KL,J
W.P.No.22037 of 2021
iii) However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be
no order as to costs.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ
petition shall stand closed.
_________________
K. LAKSHMAN, J
4th October, 2021
Note: Furnish C.C. today itself
(B/O.) Mgr
