Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

60. Therefore, the decision of the Single Judge of this Court in Akbaruddin Owaisi, which arose out of registration of multiple FIRs in relation to a single speech, can have no application to the cases on hand. Actually there are enough and more indications to this effect in the very judgment itself.

61. It appears that the contentions, same as those raised before us by the petitioners, found favour with a learned Judge of the Madras High Court in Viswapriya (India) Ltd v. Government of Tamilnadu and Others (2015 3 MLJ (Crl) 385). In that case two companies against which criminal complaints were registered for offences under the IPC as well as under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1997 filed Writ Petitions challenging the registration of complaints as without jurisdiction. The challenge was on several grounds namely (1) that the Deputy Superintendent of Police of the Economic Offences Wing of the police had no power to investigate offences under the special enactment; (2) that the police have no power to investigate offences relating to incorporated companies; and (3) that it is only the Competent Authority under the special enactment who will be entitled to investigate into such offences. But all these contentions were negatived by the learned judge of the Madras High Court. The last contention was that there cannot be multiple FIRs. This contention was raised on the strength of the decision of the Supreme Court in T.T Antony. This contention was accepted by the learned Judge of the Madras High Court and a direction was issued to the police not to register any fresh FIRs but to treat all further complaints as statements under Section 161 of the code.