Telangana High Court
Yuvaraj Ramakrishna, vs The State Of Telangana, on 20 November, 2025
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.14145 OF 2025
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused
Nos.1 and 2 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in
Crime No.369 of 2025 of O.U. City Police Station, Hyderabad,
registered for the offences under Sections 79, 351(2) and 352
read with 3(5) BNS and 66D of Information Technology Act, 2008.
2. Heard Sri P. Pratap, learned counsel for the petitioners and
Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that
respondent No.2-de facto complainant has filed second F.I.R.
basing on similar set of allegations, which is not tenable in the
eye of law. Two F.I.Rs. cannot be lodged with regard to the same
incident and same offences against the petitioners. He further
submitted that on the earlier complaint, charge sheet has already
been filed and the same was taken cognizance by the learned
IV Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, and
numbered as C.C.No.6403 of 2025, and in the said case, the
mobile phone of petitioner No.1 was seized. Since there is no
2 ETD,J
material in the earlier case, the present F.I.R. is being lodged with
the same set of allegations. In support of his submissions,
learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of the
Honourable Apex Court in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala and
others 1 and in light of the said judgment, he prayed to quash the
proceedings in the present crime against the petitioners herein.
4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the
present case is totally on a different cause of action. In the
present crime, it is alleged that the petitioners herein are
threatening the de facto complainant to withdraw the earlier case
filed by her against the petitioners herein. Thus, the case
cropped up from a different incident. Hence, the proceedings in
the present crime cannot be quashed.
5. Perused the record.
6. In the first complaint, it is alleged that the petitioners tried to
outrage the modesty of the de facto complainant and also caused
hurt and threatened her. It is alleged that petitioner No.1, who
was her classmate, developed acquaintance with her, followed
her and proposed love, on which she denied, but he still insisted
(2001) 6 Supreme Court Cases 181
3 ETD,J
her and started beating her with hands while on her way from
college to her house and used to trouble her a lot. Further, there
are certain incidents reported, in which she was targeted and beat
by petitioner No.1 in public and on one day, when petitioner No.1
was harassing the de facto complainant by asking her to love him
and has beaten her, the father of petitioner No.1 i.e., petitioner
No.2 came there, hugged her, kissed her and brought her to
Tarnaka on his bike and offered coconut water and when she
refused, he scolded her by using abusive language. Petitioner
No.1 also threatened that he would pour acid on her mother and
tried to touch her private parts at metro station road. It is with the
said set of allegations, the earlier complaint was lodged on
10.04.2025 vide F.I.R.No.178 of 2025 of O.U. City Police Station,
Hyderabad.
7. The present F.I.R. is registered based on the complaint that
petitioner No.1 has created an Instagram ID and has posted
vulgar messages and nude photos of the de facto complainant,
whereby third parties have started calling her and her family
members. It is further alleged that the mother of petitioner No.1
called the de facto complainant and asked her to withdraw the
case and abused her. It is further alleged that petitioner No.1
4 ETD,J
posted individual messages to her college friends stating that
police have caught her at Kukatpally metro station, while she was
doing prostitution. Thus, it is made out that the two complaints
are based on two different incidents. The cause of action is
entirely different in both the cases. Though the parties are same,
since the alleged incidents in both the complaints happen to be
different, it cannot be said that there are multiple F.I.Rs. based on
similar set of allegations.
8. In T.T. Antony's case (supra), the Honourable Apex Court
dealt with a case, wherein it was held that:
"In respect of the same cognizable offence and same
occurrence two FIRs had been lodged and held that there
can be no second FIR and no fresh investigation on
receipt of every subsequent information in respect of the
same cognizable offence or same occurrence giving rise
to one or more cognizable offences."
9. In Babu Bhai v. State of Gujarat 2 , it was held 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 are two or more parts of
(2010) 12 SCC 254
5 ETD,J
the same transaction and that if the answer is affirmative,
the second FIR is liable to be quashed."
10. In the present case, there are different set of allegations
based on different incidents. The cases did not crop up out of the
same incident. Though the nature of offences alleged is same,
the incidents are different. Hence, the proceedings in the present
crime cannot be quashed. Thus, the Criminal Petition lacks merit.
11. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________________
JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
Date: 20.11.2025.
MD
