Telangana High Court
Patnam Narender Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 29 November, 2024
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K.Lakshman
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN
WRIT PETITION No.32798 OF 2024
ORDER:
Heard Sri T.V. Ramana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Tera Rajinikanth Reddy, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for respondents.
2. This Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of respondent Nos.3 to 6 in registering the FIR No.154 and 155 of 2024 pending on the file of Bomraspet Police Station pertaining to the same incident which is subject matter of FI.R. No.153 of 2024 pending on the file of the said Police Station as illegal and for consequential direction to the respondent Nos.3 to 6 to discontinue FIR Nos.154 and 155 of 2024.
3. The petitioner is an Ex-MLA. He is an accused No.1(A.1) in the aforesaid three crimes. On the complaint lodged by respondent Nos.7 to 9, the Police Bomraspet registered the aforesaid three crimes. The petitioner was arrested in Cr.No.153 of 2024 on 13.11.2024 and he is in judicial remand. 2
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the date of incident, place of incident etc., are same. Basing on the same incident, the police cannot register the aforesaid three crimes against the petitioner herein. The allegation against the petitioner herein is conspiracy. Therefore, registration of subsequent Crime Nos.154 and 155 of 2024 by Bomraspet Police, are liable to be quashed.
5. The petitioner is Ex-MLA. With political motive and to harass the petitioner, the Police registered aforesaid three crimes on the complaint lodged by respondent Nos.7 to 9.
6. The allegations leveled against the accused in all three Crimes are one and the same and therefore, registration of the other two crimes i.e. Cr.Nos.154 and 155 of 2024 are liable to be quashed. He has also placed reliance on the judgment in Akbaruddin Owaisi vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 1, Smt. K.Mathamma vs. State of Telangana 2 and Akbaruddin Owaisi vs. State of A.P. represented by its Principal Secretary, Home 1 (2023) 1 ALD Crl.812 2 2022 (1)ALT (Crl) 12 (T.S.) 3 Department 3. With the said submissions, he sought to quash the Cr.Nos.154 and 155 of 2024.
7. Whereas, learned Additional Advocate General would contend that the allegations leveled against the accused in the aforesaid three crimes are different. Place of incident is different. Victims and accused are different. Even the offences are also different. There is no political motive. The allegations leveled against the petitioner herein are serious. He is the main conspirator and at his instance, the other accused attacked the District Collector, Special Officer, KADA and other officials, who went to the spot for the purpose of conducting public hearing. They have formed into unlawful assembly and attacked the said Special Officer, KADA with deadly weapons. Investigation is at the threshold. Quashing of the three crimes at the threshold is impermissible as per the principle laid down by the Apex Court and this Court in Crl.P.Nos.1232 of 2022 and batch vide order dated 29.04.2022. He has placed reliance on the principle laid down in TT Antony vs. State of Kerala 4 and Jacob John vs. 3 2013 (6) ALT 101 (SB) 4 (2001) 6 SCC 181 4 State of Manipur 5 in common order dated 29.04.2022 in Crl.P.No.1232 of 2022.
8. Perusal of the aforesaid complaints in Cr.Nos.153, 154 and 155 of 2024 pending on the file of Bomraspet Police Station, would reveal that the District Collector, Special Officer, KADA and other officials went to the outskirts of Lagcherla Village for the purpose of conducting public hearing with regard to establishment of Pharma Company. Villagers and other stakeholders were not found to participate in the public hearing. A.2 informed the District Collector and other officials stating that nobody will come to the said place of meeting and they have to conduct public hearing at Lagcherla village. They can hold gramsabha in the village. Thereafter, the District Collector and other officials believed his version bonafidely and went to Lagcherla village in his car bearing No.TS 07 EV 2929. Other officials including defacto-complainants in all the said crimes followed them to the village.
9. It is further alleged that in Lagcherla village, the people of Lagchrela, Rotibanda Thanda, Pulicherlakunta Thanda formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with stones, sticks and Chili 5 (2020) Supreme (Manipur) 176 5 powder. At about 12.20 hours, when all the officials including the Collector reached Lagcherla village, accused and others raised slogans against the District Collector saying that 'go back Pharma'. They have also obstructed the Collector's vehicle and also Special Officer, KADA. They have attacked the Collector. They have also attacked the defacto-complainant in all the aforesaid crimes with stones, sticks and chilli powder. They have also damaged Collector's vehicle. When Special Officer, KADA tried to convince the accused and other people, they have attacked him. In the said attack, he received injuries on the left hand and back side of his neck and right leg etc. He has saved himself, otherwise they would have killed him. Thus, all the accused formed into unlawful assembly, tried to kill the Collector, Special Officer, KADA and other officials for conducting public hearing.
10. In the light of the same, it is apt to refer the date of incident, place of incident, time of incident, nature of allegations against the accused in all the aforesaid crimes which are relevant and the same are extracted below:-
6
Cr. Name of the Place of the Time of Offences
No. complainant incident the
& incident
Designation
153/ N.Srinivasa Anjaneya 12.20 under Sections 61 (2),
2024 Reddy, Temple, PM 191(2), 191(3) 132,109,
Sub Primary 121(1), 126(2), 324 (4)
Divisional School, read with 190 BNS,
Police Lagcherla Section 3 of PDPPA
Officer,
Vikarabad
154/ Karra Kishan Hanuman Not under Sections 191(2),
2024 MRO, temple, specific 191(3) 132,109, 121(1),
Dudyal Lagicherla ally 126(2), 324 (4) read with
mentio 190 BNS, Section 3 of
ned in PDPPA
the
complai
nt
155/ District Chellapuram 12.20 under Sections 191(2),
2024 Crime Venkataiah's PM 191(3) 132,109, 121(1),
Report residence, 126(2), 324 (4) read with
Bureau, Lagcherla 190 BNS, Section 3 of
DSP, PDPPA
Vikarabad
11. In all the aforesaid three crimes, the name of the petitioner is not there. There is no allegation against the petitioner herein in the aforesaid three complaints that the petitioner conspired with other accused and attacked the District Collector, Special Officer, KADA and other officials who came to Lagcherla village for conducting public hearing. In the remand report, there is an allegation of conspiracy against the petitioner herein. He was arrested in Cr.No.153 of 2024 on 13.11.2024. In all the aforesaid 7 three complaints, the date of incident is 11.11.2024 and time of incident is around 12.20 P.M.
12. In all the three complaints in the aforesaid three crimes specifically alleged about forming of unlawful assembly by the accused, attacking the District Collector, Special Officer, KADA and other officials who came to Lagcherla village for the purpose of conducting public hearing. They have also raised slogans 'go back Pharma'. They are opposing establishment of Pharma Company in the said village and also opposing the public hearing. They have attacked the District Collector, Special Officer, KADA and damaged their vehicles. Special Officer, KADA received injuries.
13. As discussed supra, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the allegations in all the aforesaid complaints is one and the same. Therefore, the Police, Bomraspet Police Station cannot register crimes vide Cr.Nos.154 and 155 of 2024 on the very same allegations. It is contrary to the procedure laid down in Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ( for short, 'BNSS') and 8 also principle laid down by the Apex Court and this Court in catena of decisions.
14. In the light of the said discussion, it is relevant to note that in TT Antony (supra), the Apex Court had an occasion to deal with the registration of multiple F.I.Rs. In paragraph No.24, the Apex Court held that there can be no second FIR and consequently there could be no fresh investigation in receipt of every subsequent information in respect of the same cognizable offence or some occurrence or incident giving rise to one or more cognizable offences. It was further held that only the information about the commission of cognizable offence(s), which is first entered in the Station House Diary by the Officer In-Charge of the Police Station, can be regarded as First Information Report under Section 154 of Cr.P.C; on subsequent information, the same offence will be covered by Section 162 of Cr.P.C.
15. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment is extracted below:-
A just balance between the fundamental rights of the citizens under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution and the expansive power of the police to investigate a cognizable offence has to be struck by the Court. There cannot be any 9 controversy that sub-section (8) of Section 173 Cr.P.C. empowers the police to make further investigation, obtain further evidence (both oral and documentary) and forward a further report or reports to the Magistrate. In Narangs' case (supra) it was, however, observed that it would be appropriate to conduct further investigation with the permission of the Court. However, the sweeping power of investigation does not warrant subjecting a citizen each time to fresh investigation by the police in respect of the same incident, giving rise to one or more cognizable offences, consequent upon filing of successive FIRs whether before or after filing the final report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. It would clearly be beyond the purview of Sections 154 and 156 Cr.P.C. nay, a case of abuse of the statutory power of investigation in a given case. In our view 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, may be a fit case for exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or under Article 226/227 of the Constitution.
16. Relying on the said judgment, in Akbaruddin Owaisi (2023) (1) ALD Crl.812 (TS), this Court held that the sweeping power of investigation does not warrant subjecting a citizen each time to a fresh investigation by the police in respect of the same 10 incident, giving rise to one or more cognizable offences, consequent upon filing of successive, FIRs, whether before or after filing the final report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. the Court, observed that case of fresh investigation based on the consequent or successive FIRs not being 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 under way or final report under Section 173 (2) of Cr.P.C. has been forwarded to the Magistrate, may be fit case for exercise of power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. or under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.
17. In Upkar Singh (supra), the Apex Court clarifying the principle laid down by it in TT Antony (supra), held that any further complaint by the same complainant or others against the same accused, subsequent to the registration of a case, is prohibited under the Code because an investigation in this regard would have already started and further complaint against the same accused will 11 amount to an improvement on the facts mentioned in the original complaint, hence will be prohibited under Section 162 of the Code.
18. In Babu Bai vs. State of Gujarat 6, in paragraph No.21, the Apex Court held as follows:-
"21. 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 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 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 counterclaim, investigation on both the FIRs has to be conducted."
This Court held that the relevant enquiry is whether two or more FIRs relate to the same incident or relate to incidents which form part of the same transactions. If the Court were to conclude in the affirmative, the subsequent FIRs are liable to be quashed. However, where the subsequent FIR relates to different incidents or crimes or is in the form of a counter-claim, investigation may 6 (2010) 12 SCC 254 12 proceed. [See also in this context ChirraShivraj v. State of A.P. [ChirraShivraj v. State of A.P., (2010) 14 SCC 444 :
(2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 757] and Chirag M. Pathak v.
Dollyben Kantilal Patel [Chirag M. Pathak v. Dollyben Kantilal Patel, (2018) 1 SCC 330 : (2018) 1 SCC (Cri) 369]
19. In Arnab Ranjan Goswami vs Union Of India 7, the Apex Court, on examination of the facts therein, more particularly, registration of multiple F.I.Rs against the petitioner therein, based on TV show aired on a particular day i.e. 21.04.2020, the facts mentioned in all the F.I.Rs. was the same, TV show and that it was held that no subsequent FIR can be registered in respect of same, the incident arising out of the same occurrence or incident. 8
20. In Krishna Lal Chawla vs. State of UP reiterated the principle laid down in TT Antony (supra), and Upkar Singh (Supra) and held as follows:
7. This Court in Upkar Singh [Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash, (2004) 13 SCC 292 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 211] has clearly stated that any further complaint by the same complainant against the same accused, after the case has 7 AIR 2020 SC 2386 8 AIR 2021 SC 1381 13 already been registered, will be deemed to be an improvement from the original complaint.
Though Upkar Singh [Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash, (2004) 13 SCC 292 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 211] was rendered in the context of a case involving cognizable offences, the same principle would also apply where a person gives information of a non-cognizable offence and subsequently lodges a private complaint with respect to the same offence against the same accused person. Even in a non-cognizable case, the police officer after the order of the Magistrate, is empowered to investigate the offence in the same manner as a cognizable case, except the power to arrest without a warrant. Therefore, the complainant cannot subject the accused to a double whammy of investigation by the police and inquiry before the Magistrate.
21. In C. Muniappan (Supra), the Apex Court held that two or more crimes can be clubbed if the circumstances and facts indicate that the second crime was connected or was a result of the first crime. The relevant portion is extracted below:
37. The submission on behalf of the appellants that two crimes bearing Nos. 188 and 190 of 2000 could not be clubbed together, has also no merit for the simple reason that if the cases are considered, keeping in view the totality of the circumstances and the sequence in which the two incidents occurred, taking into consideration the 14 evidence of drivers and conductors/cleaners of the vehicles involved in the first incident and the evidence of C. Ramasundaram, VAO (PW 87), we reach the inescapable conclusion that the second occurrence was nothing but a fall out of the first occurrence. The damage caused to the public transport vehicles and the consequential burning of the University bus remained part of one and the same incident. Merely because two separate complaints had been lodged, did not mean that they could not be clubbed together and one charge-sheet could not be filed (see T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala [(2001) 6 SCC 181 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 1048] ).
22. The decisions in Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah (Supra) and Yanob Sheikh (Supra) relied upon by the Petitioners herein also reiterate that multiple FIRs relating to the same transaction and between same parties are not maintainable. . 23. In Akbaruddin-2023 1 ALD Crl.812 (supra), this Court held that multiple FIRs cannot be registered if the offences relate to the same incident and arise out of same circumstances. The Court therein discussed the test of sameness to be applied while deciding whether the subsequent FIRs are maintainable. The Court held as follows:
15
39. Let us now briefly refer to the tests which should, ordinarily, be applied to determine whether or not the two FIRs under consideration relate to the same incident/transaction. The law recognizes a common trial or a common FIR being registered for one series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction as contemplated under Section 220 Cr.P.C. The expression 'same transaction', from its very nature, is incapable of exact definition. (Anju Chaudhary, (2013 Cri LJ
776); Mohan Baitha v. State of Bihar57.). The distinction between two FIRs relating to the same incident, and two FIRs relating to different incidents or occurrences of the same incident, should be carefully examined. (Babubhai) : 2010 AIR SCW 5126. The merits of each case must be considered to determine whether a subsequently registered FIR is a second FIR relating to the same incident or offence or is based upon distinct and different facts and whether its scope of inquiry is entirely different or not. It will not be appropriate for the Court to lay down one straight jacket formula uniformly applicable to all cases. This will always be a mixed question of law and fact depending on the merits of a given case. (Anju Chaudhary.). The test, to determine whether two FIRs can be permitted to exist, is whether the two incidents are identical or not. (Ram Lal Narang, (1979 Cri LJ 1346)).
40. The concept of "sameness" has been given a restricted meaning. In order to examine the impact of 16 one or more FIRs. the Court has to rationalise the facts and circumstances of each case and then apply the test of 'sameness' to find out whether both FIRs relate to the same incident and to the same occurrence; and whether they are in regard to incidents which are two or more parts of the same transaction or relate completely to two distinct occurrences.It is only if the second FIR relates to the same cause of action, the same incident, there is sameness of occurrence and an attempt has been made to improvise the case, would the second FIR be liable to be quashed. In cases where every FIR has a different spectrum, and the allegations made are distinct and separate, it may be regarded as a counter complaint, but it cannot be stated that an effort has been made to improve the allegations that find place in the first FIR or that the principle of "sameness" is attracted. (Babubhai, (2010 AIR SCW 5126); Surendra Kaushik v. State of Uttar Pradesh-
2013 CrlLJ 1570).
41. It is not possible to enunciate any formula of universal application to determine whether two or more acts constitute the same transaction. They are to be gathered from the circumstances of a given case indicating proximity of time, unity or proximity of place, continuity of action, commonality of purpose or design. For several offences to be part of the same transaction, the test to be applied is whether they are so related to one another in point of purpose or of cause and effect or as principal and 17 subsidiary, so as to result in one continuous action. Where there is commonality of purpose or design, where there is a continuity of action, then all those persons involved can be accused of the same or different offences "committed in the course of the same transaction". Where two incidents are of different times with involvement of different persons, there is no commonality, the purpose thereof is different, they emerge from different circumstances, and would not form part of the same transaction. (Anju Chaudhary, (2013 Cri LJ 776)).
24. In Jakka Vinod Kumar Reddy vs. The State of Telangana 9, this Court discussed various decisions held that in following cases multiple FIRs are maintainable:
20. The sum and substance of the above said judgments is that there is no embargo for registration of two FIRs on the following circumstances/grounds:
(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 9 2021(2) ALT (Crl) 171 (TS) 18 FIRs and investigation can be carried out under both of them by the same Investigating Agency.
The decision in Jakka Vinod Kumar Reddy (Supra) was subsequently followed by this Court in K. Mathamma (Supra).
25. Relying on the said principles, this Court in Crl.P.No.1232 of 2022 held that registration of multiple FIRs is impermissible, if they relate to the occurrence of same incident, involve same parties and arise out of the same cause of action. Registration of multiple FIRs are impermissible even in cases of different incidents if such incidents form part of the same transaction. In other words, if the subsequent offence alleged in the subsequent FIR is connected with the first FIR or is the consequence of the first FIR, such subsequent FIR is not maintainable. The courts before reaching a conclusion that the subsequent FIRs are not maintainable, shall see if the alleged incidents or offences are identical or not and whether any commonality between the accused and the complainant exists. Further, registration of subsequent FIRs are impermissible if they are filed only to improve the case of the prosecution or fill up the lacunae in the earlier complaint.
19
26. In Sreekumar vs. State of Kerala 10, the Apex Court held that where the subsequent FIR was registered on different set of allegations by a different person, the said FIR is maintainable.
27. In Jakir Hussain Kosangi vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 11 Division Bench of this Court discussed various decisions of the Supreme Court dealing with multiple registration of crimes. The Court held that where similar offences involving various victims are committed, each of such offence involves an independent cause of action. Further, registration of FIRs by multiple victims cannot be prohibited simply because the nature of allegations are the same as each offence arises out of an independent cause of action.
28. In Jacob John (supra), wherein two complaints were registered against the accused i.e. one in Ukhrul Police Station, and the other is by Mansarovar Police Station, Jaipur city. The offences leveled against the petitioner therein are punishable under Sections 370 (5), 376, 34 of IPC and Section 6/2010 of the POCSO, 2012. On examination of the facts therein, Manipur High Court at Imphal 10 (2018) 4 SCC 579 11 2017(5) ALT 342 20 held that successive FIRs for the same incident are permissible if they pertain to different incidents/crimes. The seriousness of the offences and their societal impact, shall also be considered and the accused must face trial in two different places.
29. In the light of the said principle, coming to the facts of the present case, as discussed supra, the incident is one and the same which took place on 11.11.2024. Most of the accused are common. On the complaint lodged by 7th respondent i.e. Sub Divisional Police Officer, Vikarabad, Bomraspet Police, registered a case in Cr.No.153 of 2024 for the offences under Sections 61 (2), 191(2), 191(3) 132,109, 121(1), 126(2), 324 (4) read with 190 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short 'BNS'), Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 ( for short, 'PDPPA'). The Police, Bomraspet, received a complaint from 7th respondent at 14.00 hours on 11.11.2024 and they have registered the aforesaid crime at 14.00 hours. Admittedly, the name of the petitioner is not there in the said complaint dated 11.11.2024 of 7th respondent.
21
30. On the complaint lodged by 8th respondent - the MRO, the very same police, registered a case in Cr.No.154 of 2024 against the accused for the offences under Section 191(2), 191(3) 132,109, 121(1), 126(2), 324 (4) read with 190 BNS, Section 3 of PDPPA, the name of the petitioner is not there in the said complaint. The said complaint was received by the Police, Bomraspet Police Station at 15.00 hours on 11.11.2024 and they have registered the said crime at 15.00 hours.
31. On the complaint lodged by 8th respondent, the very same police, registered a case in Cr.No.155 of 2024 at 16.00 hours for the offences under Section 191(2), 191(3) 132,109, 121(1), 126(2), 324 (4) read with 190 BNS, Section 3 of PDPPA .
32. In Cr.No.153 of 2024, the place of incident is mentioned as near Anjaneya Swamy temple, Lagcherla village. Time of incident is 12.20 p.m. In the complaint in Cr.No.154 of 2024, place of incident is mentioned as Anjaneyaswamy temple, Lagcherla village. In the complaint in Cr.No.155 of 2024, the place of incident is mentioned as Chellapuram Venkataiah's residence. As discussed supra, Cr.No.153 of 2024, Cr.No.154 of 2024 and 22 Cr.No.155 of 2024 were registered at 14.00, 15.00 and 16.00 hours. by the Police, Bomraspet Police Station on the complaints lodged by respondent Nos.7 to 9.
33. It is also relevant to note that the scribe of all the three complaints is one and the same. Respondent No.7 is Sub Divisional Officer, Respondent No.8 is Mandal Revenue Officer, respondent No.9 is also a DCRB, DSP, who are highly educated and responsible officers. Instead of preparing complaints on their own by mentioning the incident specifically, they have signed on the written complaint prepared by Writer of Bomraspet Police Station. The only explanation offered by Sri T. Rajinikanth Reddy, learned Additional Advocate General, with regard to the same is that there was attack on the District Collector, Special Officer, KADA and other officials and situation in the village was tense. Therefore, respondent Nos.7 to 9 were not in a position to prepare complaint on their own. However, the complaints were prepared by Writer of Bomrapet Police Station on the instructions of respondent Nos.7 to 9 and after going through the same, they have signed. The said explanation offered by the learned Additional Advocate 23 General is not satisfactory. Respondent Nos.7 to 9 being Sub Divisional Police Officer, the MRO and Deputy Superintendent of Police, have to prepare complaints by mentioning the incident specifically. They cannot sign on the complaints prepared by Writer of the Police Station and lodge a complaint with police, Bomraspet Police Station at different timings i.e. at 14.00, 15.00 and 16.00 hours. In the said complaints, there is no mention that on the instructions of respondent Nos.7 to 9, Writer of the said Police Station prepared complaints and on going through the same, they have signed on the same. The said facts would show the intention of the respondents in implicating the petitioner in the aforesaid three crimes.
34.It is trite to note that Sri Tera Rajinikanth Reddy, learned Additional Advocate General fairly admitted that the place of incident in Cr.No.153 of 2024 and 154 of 2024 is one and the same.
35. It is also relevant to note that in all the aforesaid three FIRs, the name of the petitioner is not there. The only allegation leveled against him is conspiracy. According to the respondent 24 Nos.7 to 9, the petitioner is the main conspirator, on his instigation and assistance both financial and moral etc., the accused in all the aforesaid crimes formed into unlawful assembly, attacked the District Collector, Special Officer, KADA and other officials with an intention to kill them. Except conspiracy, there is no other allegation against the petitioner herein.
36. Thus, the allegation leveled against the petitioner/A.1 in all the three crimes is same i.e. conspiracy. There is no allegation against him that he was present physically in all three incidents and that he has participated in the said attack.
37. In the light of the said discussion and the principle laid down by the Apex Court and this Court, registration of multiple FIRs against the petitioner/A.1 is impermissible. If they relates to the occurrence of same incident and investigation is same, arising out of the same cause of action, registration of multiple FIRs is impermissible even in case of different incidents. This Court has to see if the alleged incident or offences are identical or not or commonality between the accused and the complainant exists or not. Registration of subsequent FIRs are impermissible, if they are 25 filed only to improve the case of the prosecution or to fill up lacunae in the earlier complaint.
38. As discussed supra, the incidents, nature of allegations, most of the accused, damage to vehicles and cause of action in three crimes, offences registered are one and the same. There is commonality between the accused and the complainant. Therefore, registration of multiple FIRs i.e. Cr.No.154 and 155 of 2024 of Bomraspet Police Station with regard to the same incident against the petitioner is impermissible and are liable to be quashed.
39. The complaints in Cr.No.154 and 155 of 2024 and statements, if any, recorded by the Investigating Officer shall be treated as statements in Cr.No.153 of 2024 and the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 180 of BNSS, may be treated as statements of witnesses in Cr.No.153 of 2024.
40. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, this writ petition is allowed. The proceedings in Cr.No.154 and 155 of 2024 pending on the file of Bomraspet Police Station against the petitioner alone, are hereby quashed. The investigating Officer in Cr.No.153 of 2024 pending on the file of Bomraspet Police Station is at liberty to 26 record statements of respondent Nos.8 and 9 (complainants in Cr.Nos.154 and 155 of 2024) in Cr.No.153 of 2024. The statements, if any, recorded by the Investigating Officer in Cr.No.154 and 155 of 2024 shall be treated as statements in Cr.No.153 of 2024.
Consequently, miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending, shall also stand closed.
__________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J Date:29.11.2024 Vvr