Telangana High Court

Syed Minhaz Hussain vs The State Of Telangana on 25 April, 2025

           THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL

     CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.7839, 8604, 12434 and 12451 of 2023

COMMON ORDER :

The present criminal petitions are filed by the petitioner/A10

under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the criminal proceedings

against him in the cases as tabulated hereunder :

 Crl.P.No.    Connection case          FIR No.           Offences
             before trial Court
 7839/2023  SC No.494 of 2022        310 of 2017    Under Sections 147,
              on the file of the      of Jubilee    148, 332, 307, 452,
           learned II Additional     Hills Police    427, 435, 324 read
                Metropolitan           Station       with Section 149 of
             Sessions Judge at                      IPC and Section 4 of
                 Nampally                                 PDPP Act.
 8604/2023 SC No.495 of 2022         308 of 2017    Under Sections 147,
              on the file of the      of Jubilee    148, 332, 307, 427,
           learned II Additional     Hills Police       435 read with
                Metropolitan           Station       Section 149 of IPC
             Sessions Judge at                         and Section 4 of
                 Nampally                                 PDPP Act.
12434/2023  CC No.0402951 of         361 of 2017    Under Sections 147,
            2018 on the file of      of Sanjeeva-   148, 452, 324, 427
               the learned III       reddy Nagar      read with Section
              Additional Chief           Police          149 of IPC.
                Metropolitan            Station
                Magistrate at
                 Nampally
12451/2023 SC No.496 of 2022         309 of 2017    Under Sections 147,
              on the file of the      of Jubilee    148, 332, 307, 427,
           learned II Additional     Hills Police      435 read with
                Metropolitan           Station       Section 149 of IPC
             Sessions Judge at                        and Section 4 of
                 Nampally.                               PDPP Act.

2. Heard Sri Vijay Kumar Panuganti, learned counsel for the

petitioners in Crl.P.Nos.12451 of 2023 and 12434 of 2023, who also

represented Sri M.Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner in

Crl.P.No.8604 of 2023 and G.Chandra Shekar, learned counsel for the

petitioner in Crl.P.No.7839 of 2023, Sri E.Ganesh learned counsel or

the respondent No.1 in all the matters and Sri P.Nagesh, learned

counsel for the respondent No.2 in Crl.P.Nos.8604 o 2023 and 12451 of

2023.

3. The subject FIRs are registered against the accused alleging that

in view of murder of one Amir Ali Khan @ Jali Amir on 07.05.2017, on

the next day i.e. 08.05.2017, when the procession of the dead body was

going-on, the accused along with others attacked other religion people,

damaged their property and beat them.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that except

repeating the allegations as against the petitioners, no apparent change

can be seen in the entire averments made as against the petitioners by

the respective complaints in all the four FIRs. Learned counsel for the

petitioners further submitted that one more crime in FIR No.307 of

2017 on the file of the Banjara Hills Police Station has been registered

for the same set of allegations against the accused herein and others for

the offences under Sections 147, 148, 153A, 295A, 307, 427, 452 read

with Section 149 of IPC. Upon filing charge-sheet, the said case is

assigned CC No.657 of 2022 on the file of the learned VII Additional

Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Nampally. The present stage of the said

case is pending for consideration of charges and is posted to

02.05.2025. Hence, totally five FIRs were registered against the

petitioners and others with the same set of allegations by the different

complainants in different police stations. In all these crimes the

petitioner has been arrayed as accused No.10. The learned counsel for

the petitioner vehemently contended that for no fault on his part the

petitioner has been subjected to harassment and mental agony of facing

criminal proceedings. The petitioner cannot be subjected to face trial

for the same offence in different FIRs which would ultimately result in

double jeopardy as against the spirt of Article 20(1) of the Constitution

of India. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that

except a few of the witnesses, all other witnesses are same in all the

above crimes. He further submitted that this is a clear case of abuse of

process of law. Stating thus, the learned counsel for the petitioner

relied upon the decision rendered in Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah Vs.

Central Bureau of Investigation and another 1 mainly contending that

the respondent police, without application of mind had filed charge-

sheets against the petitioner which is not permissible in the law and

also the proposition of law enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court.

Stating thus the learned counsel for the petitioner finally submits that

the action of the respondent/police in registering different FIRs basing

(2013) 6 Supreme Court Cases 348

on the same cause of action amounts to abuse of process of law, illegal,

arbitrary and violative of fundamental rights of the petitioner.

5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor

vehemently opposed the present criminal petitions mainly contending

that the truth or otherwise of the allegations levelled against the

petitioner can only be decided only basing on the evidence adduced

during the trial and without subjecting them to such litmus test,

deciding the complicity or otherwise of the petitioner at this premature

stage does not meet the ends of justice. He further contends that facts

of each case are different. He further submitted that the petitioner has

been arrayed as accused No.10 in all the FIRs and he got every

opportunity to file discharge petitions before the trial Court at

appropriate time.

6. This Court heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

learned Assistant public Prosecutor. In the case of Amitbhai

Anilchandra Shah (cited supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under :

"58.3 Even after filing of such a report, if he comes into possession of further information or material, there is no need to register a fresh FIR, he is empowered to make further investigation normally with the leave of the Court and where during further investigation, he collects further evidence, oral or documentary, he is obliged to forward the same with one or more further reports which is evident from sub-section (8) of Section 173 of the Code. Under the scheme of the provisions of Sections 154, 155, 156, 157, 162, 169, 170 and 173 of the Code, only the earliest or the first information in regard to the commission of a cognizable offence satisfies the requirements of Section 154 of the Code. Thus, 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 occurrence or incident giving rise to one or more cognizable offences.

58.4. Further, on receipt of information about a cognizable offence or an incident giving rise to a cognizable offence or offences and on entering FIR in the Station House Diary, the officer-in-charge of the police station has to investigate not merely the cognizable offence reported in the FIR but also other connected offences found to have been committed in the course of the same transaction or the same occurrence and file one or more reports as provided in Section 173 of the Code. Sub-section (8) of Section 173 of the Code empowers the police to make further investigation, obtain further evidence (both oral and documentary) and forward a further report to the Magistrate. A case of fresh investigation based on the second or successive FIRs not being a counter case, filed in connection with the same or connected cognizable offence alleged to have been committed in the course of the same transaction and in respect of which pursuant to the first FIR either investigation is underway or final report under Section 173(2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate, is liable to be interfered with by the High Court by exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code or under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution.

58.5. First Information Report is a report which gives first information with regard to any offence. There cannot be second FIR in respect of the same offence/event because whenever any further information is received by the investigating agency, it is always in furtherance of the first FIR.

58.6. In the case on hand, as explained in the earlier paras, in our opinion, the second FIR was nothing but a consequence of the event which had taken place on 25/26.11.2005. We have already concluded that this Court having reposed faith in the CBI accepted their contention that Tulsiram Prajapati encounter is a part of the same chain of events in which Sohrabuddin and Kausarbi were killed and directed the CBI to "take up" the investigation.

58.7. For vivid understanding, let us consider a situation in which Mr. 'A' having killed 'B' with the aid of 'C', informs the police that unknown persons killed 'B'. During investigation, it revealed that 'A' was the real culprit and 'D' abetted 'A' to commit the murder. As a result, the police officer files the charge sheet under Section 173(2) of the Code with the Magistrate. Although, in due course, it was discovered through further investigation that the person who abetted Mr. 'A' was 'C' and not 'D' as mentioned in the charge sheet filed under Section 173 of the Code. In such a scenario, uncovering of the later fact that 'C' is the real abettor will not demand a second FIR rather a supplementary charge sheet under section 173(8) of the Code will serve the purpose.

58.8. xxx

58.9. xxx

58.10.xxx

59. In the light of the specific stand taken by the CBI before this Court in the earlier proceedings by way of assertion in the form of counter affidavit, status reports, etc. we are of the view that filing of the second FIR and fresh charge sheet is violative of fundamental rights under Article 14, 20 and 21 of the Constitution since the same relate to alleged offence in respect of which an FIR had already been filed and the court has taken cognizance. This Court categorically accepted the CBI's plea that killing of Tulsiram Prajapati is a part of the same series of cognizable offence forming part of the first FIR and in spite of the fact that this Court directed the CBI to "take over" the investigation and did not grant the relief as prayed, namely, registration of fresh FIR, the present action of CBI filing fresh FIR is contrary to various judicial pronouncements which is demonstrated in the earlier part of our judgment

7. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has time and again

established that multiple FIRs based on the same cause of action are

generally not permissible. A second FIR is generally not allowed if it

relates to the same incident or offence as the first FIR. However, there

are exceptions where a second FIR may be registered, such as when it

relates to a distinct and separate incident or when investigation reveals

new facts or a larger conspiracy. The doctrine of sameness, often

invoked by Courts, dictates that if two FIRs relate to the same incident

or transaction, the later FIR must be quashed as it is considered an

abuse of process.

8. When the above settled proposition of law is applied to the acts of

the case on hand, the same is squarely applicable as in all five FIRs