KATIKALA SHIVABHAGYA RAO v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

: Sri N.Subba Rao ^Counsel for the Respondents : Sri P.Ajay Babu < Gist: 4 W.P.No.35896 of 2026

06.02.2026 Dr.YLR,J > Head Note: ? Cases referred:

1. MANU/TL/2544/2022

2. (2001) 6 SCC 181

3. 2020 SCC OnLine SC 462

4. (2010) 12 SCC 254

8. (2004) 13 SCC 292 (2010) 9 SCC 567 (2010) 14 SCC 444 (2013) 6 SCC 384

9. 2007 SCC OnLine Pat 116

10. 2010 SCC OnLine Bom 1164

11. W.P. No.20132 of 2025, dated 31.01.2026 5 W.P.No.35896 of 2026

06.02.2026 Dr.YLR,J THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 35896/2025 ORDER: The Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “…to issue a Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in registering multiple FIRs vide FIR No 85 of 2025 on the file of Dwaraka Police Station Visakhapatnam District FIR No 215 of 2025 on the file of Gopalapatnam Police Station Visakhapatnam District FIR No 222 of 2025 on the file of II Town Police Station Visakhapatnam District arising out of the same and a similar offence/incident based on the same set of allegations in FIR No 166 of 2025 dated 22/04/2025 on the file of Duvvada Police Station Visakhapatnam Commissionerate and not clubbing all FIRs as illegal arbitrary violation of Principles of Natural Justice violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and violation of various precedents laid down by the Honble Apex Court and this Honble Court and consequently direct the Respondents to club all Petitioner with FIR No 166 of 2025 dated 22/04/2025 on the file of Duvvada Police Station Visakhapatnam District to ensure fair and thorough investigation by the single investigation agency and pass….” the pending FIRs registered against

2. The Writ Petition is filed by the Petitioner, aged about 65 years, who has been arrayed as Accused No.2 in Crime No.166 of 2025, registered on

22.04.2025 at Duvvada Police Station, Visakhapatnam Commissionerate, for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 411, 414 and 120-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘the I.P.C’), and Sections 21(1), 21(2), 21(3) and 23 of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act (for brevity ‘the BUDS Act’), and Sections 3 and 4 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act. 6 W.P.No.35896 of 2026

06.02.2026 Dr.YLR,J

3. At the behest of one Peerubandi Prakasa Rao, the de-facto complainant, a case in Crime No.85 of 2025 was registered by the Station House Officer, Dwaraka Police Station, Visakhapatnam Commissionerate, on 01.05.2025 for the very same offences, namely, under Sections 406, 411, 414 read with Section 34 of ‘the IPC.,’ and 120-B of ‘the IPC.,’ Sections 21(1), 21(2), 21(3) and 23 of ‘the BUDS Act.,’ and Sections 3 and 4 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act (for brevity ‘the PC & MCSBA’), in which also the petitioner was shown as Accused No.1.

4. At the behest of Chikati Chiranjeevi Rao, a report was lodged before the Gopalapatnam Police Station, Visakhapatnam Commissionerate

07.08.2025 as a case in Crime No. 215 of 2025 for offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 411, 414 read with Section 34 of ‘the I.P.C.’ 120-B of ‘the I.P.C.,’ Sections 21(1)(2)(3), 23 of ‘the BUDS Act’, and Sections 3, 4 of ‘the PC & MCSBA’. This FIR also contained allegations identical to those in the earlier FIRs, concerning the same alleged irregularities in deposits of the Sneha MACS Society.

5. Subsequently, on 03.12.2025, while the Petitioner was released from custody in FIR No.215 of 2025, he was again arrested and remanded by the learned Jurisdictional Magistrate on the remand report submitted by the II Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam Commissionerate, which registered Crime No.222 of 2025. This FIR was registered with similar allegations under 7 W.P.No.35896 of 2026

06.02.2026 Dr.YLR,J provisions of ‘the I.P.C.,’ ‘the BUDS Act’, and ‘the PC & MCSBA’, again arising out of the same alleged irregularities in deposits of the Sneha MACS Society.

6. Sri N.Subba Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Bhuvanagiri Subramanya Kumar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, submits that all the FIRs registered against the Petitioner and his family members are based on the same set of allegations concerning alleged irregularities in the Sneha Mutually Aided Cooperative Society. The complaints are identical nature, arising out of one alleged offence/incident, yet multiple FIRs have been registered at different police stations without any preliminary enquiry. This multiplicity of FIRs is illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, as well as contrary to the settled precedents of the Hon’ble Supreme Court which mandate that subsequent complaints on the same incident must be treated as statements under Section 162 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ and clubbed with the first FIR.

7. It is further submitted that registering separate FIRs leads to multiplicity of investigations, conflicting opinions of investigating officers, harassment of the Petitioner and his family, and prejudice to the cooperative society’s members whose deposits remain unsettled due to the Petitioner’s incarceration. It is further submitted that the Petitioner is willing to clear dues by securing funds, but the continuation of multiple criminal cases obstructs 8 W.P.No.35896 of 2026

06.02.2026 Dr.YLR,J resolution. Therefore, the action of the Respondents in registering FIRs Nos.85, 215, and 222 of 2025 instead of clubbing them with FIR No.166 of 2025 is unconstitutional, violative of principles of natural justice, and unsustainable in law.

8. The learned Senior Counsel further submits that the offences alleged in the four FIRs relate to the very same incident and transaction. Placing reliance on the judgment of the High Court of Telangana in Akbaruddin Owaisi v. State of Andhra Pradesh1 which in turn relied upon the decision in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala2, it is submitted that registration of a second or subsequent FIRs in respect of the same transactions, whether for the same or different offences, is impermissible and violative of Article 21 of Constitution of India.

9. It is furthermore submitted that against the same accused, the same cooperative society, and arising out of the same transaction, four FIRs have been registered at the instance of depositors/de-facto complainants. Investigation has been conducted and material documents and electronic devices have already been seized. Therefore, it is urged that all complaints against Sneha MACS Ltd., including any subsequent complaints, be transferred to Duvvada Police Station in the interest of justice. 1 MANU/TL/2544/2022 2 (2001) 6 SCC 181 9 W.P.No.35896 of 2026

06.02.2026 Dr.YLR,J

10. Per Contra, Sri P. Ajay Babu, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing respondent Nos.1 to 6 argued that the cause of action in the four cases in Crime Nos.215, 222, 166 of 2025 and Crime No.85 of 2025 are entirely different. The place, date and time of the alleged offences are also different. The gullible depositors who were deceived by the Petitioner and other accused of Sneha Macs have chosen to lodge reports with the police stations of their locality. The investigation in the four cases have not at been completed. Some more material witnesses are to be examined and some more accused are to be apprehended. The writ petition is not maintainable as it is misconceived and urged to dismiss the writ petition with costs.

11. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home. Perused the record.

12. It is opposite to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in T.T Antony 2nd supra wherein at para Nos.27, 28 and 35 it is held that the Court held that while the police have power under Section 173(8) of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ to conduct further investigation, registering a second or successive FIR in respect of the same incident or transaction is impermissible and amounts to an abuse of the investigative process. Any additional material or findings ought to be incorporated only by seeking leave of the Court and filing a further report in the original FIR, and not by initiating a fresh investigation through a new FIR. Accordingly, the second FIR and the investigation pursuant thereto 10 W.P.No.35896 of 2026

06.02.2026 Dr.YLR,J were quashed, while leaving it open to the investigating agency to seek permission for further investigation in the earlier cases in accordance with law.

13. It is further relevant to mentioned that the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Arnab Ranjan Goswami v. Union of India3 wherein at para Nos.59 and 61.5 it is held that the Court noted that multiple FIRs and complaints were filed against the Petitioner across several States and Union Territories in respect of the same cause of action. By an interim order dated 24.04.2020, the Hon’ble Apext Court stayed further proceedings in all FIRs and complaints except the one originally registered at Police Station Sadar, Nagpur, which was later transferred to N.M. Joshi Marg Police Station, Mumbai. Accepting the submission of the learned Senior Counsel, the Court held that fairness in the administration of criminal justice warranted exercise of jurisdiction to prevent multiplicity of proceedings. Relying on the law laid down in T.T. Antony supra, the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated that successive FIRs or complaints founded on the same transaction are not maintainable. Consequently, all FIRs and complaints enumerated, except the one under investigation at Mumbai, were quashed.

14. In Babubhai v. State of Gujarat4, at paragraph No.14, the Hon’ble Apex Court, relying on T.T. Antony supra, reiterated that the registration of a 3 2020 SCC OnLine SC 462 4 (2010) 12 SCC 254 11 W.P.No.35896 of 2026

06.02.2026 Dr.YLR,J second FIR in respect of the same cognizable offence or the same occurrence is legally impermissible, holding that all subsequent information relating to the same incident must be treated only as statements under Section 162 of ‘the Cr.P.C.’ The Hon’ble Apex Court emphasized that the investigating agency is obliged to proceed solely on the basis of the first information recorded under Section 158 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ and to investigate not only the offences reported therein but also any connected offences arising from the same transaction, culminating in a report under Section 173 of ‘the Cr.P.C.’ Even after submission of the report under Section 173(2) of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ any further material pertaining to the same incident may be investigated only by undertaking further investigation under Section 173(8) of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ preferably with leave of the Court. The Hon’ble Apex Court clarified that receipt of multiple pieces of information relating to the same incident does not justify registration of additional FIRs, as such subsequent information cannot constitute fresh FIRs and doing so would offend the scheme of ‘the Cr.P.C.’

15. In Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash5, the Hon’ble Supreme Court clarified its earlier decision in T.T. Antony supra, does not preclude the registration of a counter- case. The Court explained that T.T. Antony supra merely prohibits the lodging of any subsequent complaint by the same complainant or others against the same accused relating to the same incident 5 (2004) 13 SCC 292 12 W.P.No.35896 of 2026

06.02.2026 Dr.YLR,J once investigation has commenced, as such later complaints would constitute an impermissible improvement upon the facts of the original complaint, thereby attracting the bar under Section 162 of ‘the Cr.P.C.’ This embargo, however, was held to be inapplicable to a counter- complaint filed by the accused in the first incident, or on his behalf, presenting a different version of the occurrence; such a counter- case remains legally maintainable as it represents an independent narrative and not a reiteration or embellishment of the initial allegations.

16. In C. Muniappan v. State of T.N6, the Hon’ble Apex Court held at paragraph No.37 that the contention that two crimes, bearing Nos.188 and 190 of 2000, could not be clubbed together was devoid of merit, as the totality of the circumstances and the sequence of events clearly established that the second incident was merely a consequential fallout of the first. The Court observed that, upon considering the evidence of the drivers, conductors, and cleaners of the vehicles involved in the first occurrence, along with the testimony of the Village Administrative Officer (PW- 87), it became evident that the damage caused to public transport vehicles and the subsequent burning of the University bus formed parts of a single continuous incident. Thus, the mere lodging of two separate complaints did not preclude the clubbing of the cases or the filing of a consolidated charge- sheet. 6 (2010) 9 SCC 567 13 W.P.No.35896 of 2026

06.02.2026 Dr.YLR,J

17. In Chirra Shivraj v. State of A.P7, the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated at paragraph No.14 that the concept of a First Information Report necessarily connotes the earliest information received by the police relating to the commission of an offence, and that no second FIR can be registered in respect of the very same incident or occurrence. The Court held that any subsequent information received by the investigating agency, even if supplements or elaborates upon the earlier facts, must be treated only as material in continuation of the original FIR, since all such information is inherently in furtherance of the first report and cannot give rise to a fresh FIR concerning the same offence or event.

18. In Anju Chaudhary v. State of U.P8, the Hon’ble Supreme Court emphasized the intrinsic legal significance of a First Information Report, describing it as the foundational document that sets the criminal machinery in motion and forms the basis of the prosecution’s case. The Court observed that while multiple pieces of information may be furnished to the officer- in- charge concerning the same incident involving one or more cognizable offences, such subsequent information constitutes statements under Section 162 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ and does not justify the registration of additional FIRs. For determining the legality of more than one FIR, the Court