Telangana High Court
Boodati Parvathi And Another vs Suday Laxman Reddy And 7 Others on 10 February, 2023
Bench: Ujjal Bhuyan, N.Tukaramji
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
Writ Appeal Nos.80, 82, 83, 84, 86, 88, 91, 92, 94, 95,
96, 97, 98, 100, 102, 104, 105, 106, 108, 109, 110,
111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 122,
123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 135, 137 & 142 of
2023
COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)
Heard Mr.P.Roy Reddy, learned counsel for the
appellants; Mr.Sunkara Naresh, learned counsel for the
first respondent; and Mr.Roopender, learned Government
Pleader for Home Department representing respondent
Nos.2 to 7.
2. These appeals are directed against the common
order dated 29.12.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge
allowing Writ Petition Nos.45620 of 2022 and batch filed by
respondents No.1 as the writ petitioners.
3. In all the writ appeals, grievance expressed by the
appellants is that without issuing notice to the appellants
and without hearing them, learned Single Judge directed
the concerned Police Station to register the complaints
lodged by the writ petitioners in connection with
M/s.Sahithi Infratech Ventures India Pvt. Ltd., and
thereafter to transfer the F.I.Rs. to Central Crime Station,
Detective Department, Hyderabad for investigation in all
the crimes. Further, Investigation Officer, Central Crime
Station has been directed to expedite and complete the
investigation as early as possible preferably within a period
of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of the
said order.
4. Appellants before us are the wife and son of
B.Lakshmi Narayana, Director of M/s.Sahithi Infratech
Ventures India Private Limited, which is engaged in the
business of development of flats. Raising various grounds
against the developer, the related writ petitions came to be
filed by persons who had booked flats in the development
project seeking registration of F.I.R. against the developer.
5. Though this Court had expressed a view that an
intra Court appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent would
not be maintainable against such a direction of learned
Single Judge in view of the decision of the Supreme Court
in Ram Kishan Fauji v. State of Haryana1, nonetheless,
this Court on 27.01.2023 had called upon the learned
Government Pleader for Home to apprise the Court about
the progress made, following the directions given by the
learned Single Judge. In the hearing today,
Mr.M.Roopender, learned Government Pleader, submits
that though F.I.Rs., were lodged in different Police Stations
following the directions of the learned Single Judge, those
have now been sent to the Central Crime Station, Detective
Department, Hyderabad. Investigation has been started by
the Central Crime Station in Cr.No.158 of 2022.
6. It is trite law that there cannot be multiple F.I.Rs.
in respect of a single offence. The law is well settled that
even if multiple F.I.Rs. are filed, the subsequent F.I.Rs.
should be treated as statement made under Section 162 of
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and transmitted to the
Police Station where the lead case is being investigated. We
have been informed that in this case the lead case is
Cr.No.158 of 2022.
(2017) 5 SCC 533
7. In view of the above clarification, we are of the view
that we need not enter into the merit and maintainability of
the writ appeals. Needless to say, the Investigating Agency
shall scrupulously follow the laid down procedure and
ensure that there is fair investigation.
8. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellants
submits that the applications under Section 482 of Cr.P.C
have been filed before this Court for quashing of the F.I.Rs.
9. We express no opinion in this regard.
10. Writ appeals are accordingly disposed of.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall
stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
______________________________________
UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ
______________________________________
N.TUKARAMJI, J
10.02.2023
MRM
