Telangana High Court

Akula Ranjith vs The State Of Telangana on 29 October, 2024

       THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA

      CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.5729 & 5732 of 2024


COMMON ORDER:

Since the issue involved in both the criminal petitions

is one and the same, they are being heard and disposed of

together by way of this common order.

2. Criminal Petition No.5729 of 2024 is filed under

Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short

'Cr.P.C.') to quash the proceedings against the petitioners in

Crime No.106 of 2024 of Bhainsa Town Police Station,

Nirmal District, registered for the offences punishable under

Sections 324 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

(for short 'IPC').

3. Criminal Petition No.5732 of 2024 is filed under

Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings against the

petitioners in Crime No.105 of 2024 of Bhainsa Town Police

Station, Nirmal District, registered for the offences

punishable under Section 188 of IPC and Section 127 of

Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 (for short 'the Act').

SKS,J Crl.P.Nos.5729 & 5732 of 2024

4. The brief facts of the cases are that the

petitioners/accused and respondent No. 2/de facto

complainant are different, but both cases involve the same

transaction. Respondent No.2 in both the cases lodged

complaints against the petitioners, stating that during

election campaign for MP elections, an incident occurred at

Kubeer Chowrastha, Bhainsa Town on BRS party working

President Kalvakunta Taraka Rama Rao. It is further stated

that some individuals wearing orange clothes (Hanuman

Deeksha Swamulu) and others entered the public meeting,

made slogans, displayed placards against Kalvakunta

Taraka Rama Rao, and threw onions, tomatoes, and brinjals

at him. Basing on the said complaint, the Police registered

a case against the petitioners in Crime Nos.105 and 106 of

2024. The petitioners have filed criminal petitions

challenging these cases.

5. Heard Sri C. Naresh Reddy, learned counsel appearing

on behalf of the petitioners in Crl.P.No.5729 of 2024, Sri

Abhinav Krishna Uppaluri, learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the petitioners in Crl.P.No.5732 of 2024 as well as

Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor

SKS,J Crl.P.Nos.5729 & 5732 of 2024

appearing on behalf of respondent No.1-State. Though

notice served upon respondent No.2, none appeared on their

behalf in both the cases.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

multiple FIRs filed against the petitioners are false and

motivated by political interests and that FIR Nos.103, 104,

105, and 106 of 2024 are filed at the same police station by

different complainants and it is only an attempt to harass

the petitioners. Learned counsel further submitted that the

petitioners got regular bail in FIR Nos.103 and 104 of 2024,

which are currently pending before the trial Court. However,

even if the bail is granted, the petitioners will be

immediately remanded in FIR Nos.105 and 106 of 2024,

further perpetuating the alleged harassment. Learned

counsel contended that registration of multiple FIRs is not

permissible in law. Therefore, the allegations leveled against

the petitioners are vague and baseless and prayed the Court

to quash the proceedings against them.

7. In support of the submissions of the learned counsel

for the petitioners, they relied upon the Judgment of the

SKS,J Crl.P.Nos.5729 & 5732 of 2024

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Babubhai and Ors v. State of

Gujarat and Ors 1, wherein in paragraph No.17, it is held as

under:

"17. Thus, in view of the above, the law on the

subject emerges to the effect that an FIR under

Section 154 Cr.P.C. is a very important

document. It is the first information of a

cognizable offence recorded by the Officer In-

Charge of the Police Station. It sets the machinery

of criminal law in motion and marks the

commencement of the investigation which ends

with the formation of an opinion under Section

169 or 170 Cr.P.C., as the case may be, and

forwarding of a police report under Section 173

Cr.P.C. Thus, it is quite possible that more than

one piece of information be given to the Police

Officer In- charge of the Police Station in respect

of the same incident involving one or more than

one cognizable offences. In such a case, he need

not enter each piece of information in the Diary.

All other information given orally or in writing

after the commencement of the investigation into

the facts mentioned in the First Information

MANU/SC/0643/2010

SKS,J Crl.P.Nos.5729 & 5732 of 2024

Report will be statements falling under Section

162 Cr.P.C. In such a case the court has to

examine the facts and circumstances giving rise

to both the FIRs and the test of sameness is to be

applied to find out whether both the FIRs relate to

the same incident in respect of the same

occurrence or are in regard to the incidents which

are two or more parts of the same transaction. If

the answer is affirmative, the second FIR is liable

to be quashed. However, in case, the contrary is

proved, where the version in the second FIR is

different and they are in respect of the two

different incidents/crimes, the second FIR is

permissible. In case in respect of the same

incident the accused in the first FIR comes

forward with a different version or counter claim,

investigation on both the FIRs has to be

conducted."

8. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor

opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for

the petitioners stating that the allegations leveled against

the petitioners are serious in nature, which requires

investigation. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the

criminal petitions.

SKS,J Crl.P.Nos.5729 & 5732 of 2024

9. In support of his submissions, learned Additional

Public Prosecutor relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Surender Kaushik and others v. State

of Uttar Pradesh and others 2 , wherein in paragraph

Nos.10, 21 and 22, it is held as under:

"2. At the very outset, it is requisite to be stated

that the appellants had invoked the jurisdiction

under Article 226 of the Constitution for

quashment of the FIR on two counts, namely,

first, that no prima facie case existed for putting

the criminal law into motion and, second, when

on the similar and identical cause of action and

allegations, FIR No. 425 of 2012 corresponding to

Crime No. 475 of 2012 had already been

registered, a second FIR could not have been

lodged and entertained. The High Court, by the

impugned order [Sushil Jain v. State of U.P.,

Criminal Miscellaneous WP No. 15077 of 2012,

order dated 12-10-2012 (All)] , has opined that it

cannot be held that no prima facie case is

disclosed and, thereafter, proceeded to issue

certain directions in relation to surrender before

2013 (5) SCC 148

SKS,J Crl.P.Nos.5729 & 5732 of 2024

the court concerned and grant of interim bail in

view of the decision rendered by the Full Bench of

the Allahabad High Court in Amarawati v. State of

U.P. [2005 Cri LJ 755 (All)] and Lal Kamlendra

Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. [(2009) 4 SCC 437 :

(2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 330]

9. Mr Altaf Ahmed, learned Senior Counsel

appearing for the complainant, the fourth

respondent herein, has submitted that on certain

occasions, same set of facts may constitute

different offences and when there are two distinct

offences having different ingredients, there would

be no embargo for registration of two FIRs. It is

further canvassed by him that on certain

occasions, two FIRs may have some overlapping

features but it is the substance of the allegations

which has to be looked into, and if a restricted

view is taken, then no counter-FIR can ever be

lodged. The learned Senior Counsel would further

submit that the investigation by the police cannot

be scuttled and the accused persons cannot be

allowed to pave the escape route in this manner.

It has been highlighted by him that lodging of

second FIR for the same cause of action or offence

is based on the principle that a person should not

SKS,J Crl.P.Nos.5729 & 5732 of 2024

be vexed twice, but if there are offences having

distinctive ingredients and overlapping features, it

would not invite the frown of Article 20 of the

Constitution of India. The pronouncement in

State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu [(2005) 11

SCC 600 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1715] has been

commended to us.

21. In Pandurang Chandrakant Mhatre

[Pandurang Chandrakant Mhatre v. State of

Maharashtra, (2009) 10 SCC 773 : (2010) 1 SCC

(Cri) 413] , the Court referred to T.T. Antony [T.T.

Antony v. State of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC 181 :

2001 SCC (Cri) 1048], Ramesh Baburao Devaskar

v. State of Maharashtra [(2007) 13 SCC 501 :

(2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 212] and Vikram v. State of

Maharashtra [(2007) 12 SCC 332 : (2008) 1 SCC

(Cri) 362] and opined that the earliest information

in regard to the commission of a cognizable

offence is to be treated as the first information

report and it sets the criminal law in motion and

the investigation commences on that basis.

Although the first information report is not

expected to be an encyclopedia of events, yet an

information to the police in order to be first

information report under Section 154(1) of the

SKS,J Crl.P.Nos.5729 & 5732 of 2024

Code, must contain some essential and relevant

details of the incident. A cryptic information

about the commission of a cognizable offence

irrespective of the nature and details of such

information may not be treated as first

information report. After so stating, the Bench

posed the question whether the information

regarding the incident therein entered into

general diary given by PW 5 is the first

information report within the meaning of Section

154 of the Code and, if so, would it be hit by

Section 162 of the Code. It is worth noting that

analysing the facts, the Court opined that

information given to the police to rush to the

place of the incident to control the situation need

not necessarily amount to an FIR.

22. In Babubhai [Babubhai v. State of Gujarat,

(2010) 12 SCC 254 : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 336] this

Court (in para 21), after surveying the earlier

decisions, expressed the view that the court has

to examine the facts and circumstances giving

rise to both the FIRs and the test of sameness is

to be applied to find out whether both the FIRs

relate to the same incident in respect of the same

occurrence or are in regard to the incidents which

SKS,J Crl.P.Nos.5729 & 5732 of 2024

are two or more parts of the same transaction. If

the answer is in the affirmative, the second FIR is

liable to be quashed. However, in case, the

contrary is proved, where the version in the

second FIR is different and they are in respect of

two different incidents/crimes, the second FIR is

permissible. In case the accused in the first FIR

comes forward with a different version or

counterclaim in respect of the same incident,

investigation on both the FIRs has to be

conducted.

24. From the aforesaid decisions, it is quite

luminous that the lodgment of two FIRs is not

permissible in respect of one and the same

incident. The concept of sameness has been given

a restricted meaning. It does not encompass filing

of a counter-FIR relating to the same or

connected cognizable offence. What is prohibited

is any further complaint by the same complainant

and others against the same accused subsequent

to the registration of the case under the Code, for

an investigation in that regard would have already

commenced and allowing registration of further

complaint would amount to an improvement of

the facts mentioned in the original complaint. As

SKS,J Crl.P.Nos.5729 & 5732 of 2024

is further made clear by the three-Judge Bench in

Upkar Singh [Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash, (2004)

13 SCC 292 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 211] , the

prohibition does not cover the allegations made

by the accused in the first FIR alleging a different

version of the same incident. Thus, rival versions

in respect of the same incident do take different

shapes and in that event, lodgment of two FIRs is

permissible."

10. In the light of the submissions made by both the

leaned counsel and a perusal of the material available on

record, as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court in

Babubai (supra), the Court must examine the facts and

circumstances surrounding both FIRs and apply the "test of

sameness" to see if they relate to the same incident or

occurrence. If the subsequent FIR is for a different incident

or crime, it is permissible and that if both FIRs relate to the

same incident, the subsequent FIR is liable to be quashed.

Further, if the accused in the first FIR presents a different

version or counterclaim, investigation on all FIRs must be

conducted.

SKS,J Crl.P.Nos.5729 & 5732 of 2024

11. Reverting to the facts of the case on hand, it appears

that the multiple FIRs were registered against the petitioners

for the same transaction on the same day, i.e., FIR.Nos.103,

104, 105 and 106 of 2024. Registration of FIR.No.105 of

2024 for the offence punishable under Section 188 of IPC

and 127 of RP Act, whereas, there is a bar under Section

195 of Cr.P.C., whereunder, the Court can take cognizance

of the offence punishable under Sections 172 to 188 of IPC if

there is a written complaint from the public servant

concerned.

12. Further, it is significant to note the judgement of the

Honourable Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v.

Hermareddy 3 , wherein in paragraph No.8, it is held as

under:

"8. We agree with the view expressed by the

learned Judge and hold that in cases where in the

course of the same transaction an offence for

which no complaint by a Court is necessary

under Section 196 (1)(b) of the Code of Criminal

Procedure and an offence for which a complaint of

AIR 1981 SC 1417

SKS,J Crl.P.Nos.5729 & 5732 of 2024

a Court is necessary under that sub-section, are

committed, it is not possible to split up and hold

that the prosecution of the accused for the

offences not mentioned in Section 196 (1)(b) of the

Code of Criminal Procedure should be upheld"