Chikkepalli Khadar Bash@ Khadar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Department of Home, Secretariat Complex

given after the first crime is registered as the statements made by the witnesses under section 162 Cr.P.C., IA NO: 1 OF 2020 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to stay all further proceedings in pursuance of crimes,Cr. No. 209/2018, Cr.No.210/2018, Cr.No.211/2018, Cr.No. 212/18 and Cr.No. 226/18, 227/18, 279/18 and 280/18 including from making further arrests of accused, pending disposal of the writ petition Counsel for the Petitioners: HARISH KUMAR RASINENI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME (AP) The Court made the following order: THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 6973 OF 2020 ORDER: The writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for: “…pleased to pass an order or direction or any other proceedings one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus- (a)Declaring the action of the respondents in registration of the crimes Cr. No. 209/2018, Cr.No. 210/2018, Cr.No. 211/2018, Cr.No. 212/18 and Cr.No. 226/18, 227/18, 279/18 and 280/18 on the file of the Tadipatri Rural P.S. and conducting investigation separately though arising out of and in consequence of the same incident as illegal, arbitrary, malafide and in violation of the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, (b)directing the respondents to conduct common investigation in all the crimes by treating as a single crime by treating all the subsequent complaints given after the first crime is registered as the statements made by the witnesses under section 162 Cr.P.C...”

2. Heard Sri Harish Kumar Rasineni, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in the year 2018, during the occasion of immersion of Ganesh idol, the villagers had to cross the Ashram of the de-facto complainant. In that process, a quarrel took place between the villagers and disciples of ashram who had come from different places. Thereafter, several crimes have registered, including counter in cases, on the basis of the complaints made by the inmates of the ashram as well as the villagers. The crimes which are referred in the present petition are registered on the complaints made by the inmates of the ashram. Learned counsel would further submit that all the crimes are relating to the very same incident and hence there cannot be multiple FIRs for one and the same incident. Even if the victims are different, their complaints may be considered as statements of witnesses in the first FIR. In that view, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for a direction to the concerned police to conduct investigation in the first crime, by showing the victims in the subsequent crimes as victims in the first FIR, and to conclude the investigation expeditiously as the crimes are pending since 2018.

4. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submits that the investigation is still pending and appropriate orders may be passed by this Court.

5. Having considered the submissions, this Court finds that the crimes referred to in the writ petition have admittedly arisen out of the same incident. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC 181, has categorically held that there cannot be a second FIR in respect of the same incident and that any subsequent information shall be treated only as a statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The said principle has been reiterated in Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. CBI, (2013) 6 SCC 348, wherein it was observed that multiple FIRs for the same incident are not permissible, except in the case of genuine counter-cases.

6. In the light of the above and in view of the admitted fact that the crimes referred to in the present writ petition have arisen out of the very same incident, this Court is of the opinion that the investigation can appropriately be carried out in the first FIR registered, by treating the subsequent complaints as statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C.

7. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent-police to examine whether the cases referred to in the writ petition arisen out of the same incident, and if so, to conduct investigation in accordance with law in the first crime, by treating the statements of the complainants in the subsequent crimes as statements of victims under Section 161 Cr.P.C., and to conclude the investigation and file a final report, strictly in accordance with law, within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 21.08.2025. KKV 259 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 6973 OF 2020

21.08.2025 KKV