E Raju @ M Raju v. District

Sub lnspector of Police, Bomraspet, Vikarabad District, at Vikarabad. Sri. N. Srinivas Reddy, S/o Sathyanarayanan Reddy Aged 50 years Occu. Sub Divisional Police Officer, Vikarabad Sub Division, Vikarabad Town and District. Sri. Karra Kishan, S/o Chandya Naik Aged 55 years Occu. MRO Dudyal Rl/o Narsapur thanda village, Narayankhed Mandal District Sangareddy. Sri B. Janaiah, S/o not known to the Petitioner Occu. DCRB DSP, Vikarabad, Dist. Vikarabad ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction more one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAIUUS declaring the action of the respondent Nos.3 to 6 in registering the FIR No.154 of 2024 and FIR No.155 of 2024 of P.S. Bomraspet pertaining to the same incident which is the subject matter of FIR No.153 oI 2024 of P.S. Bomraspet as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Art.14 and 21 of Constitution of lndia and consequently quash the FIR No.154 ol 2024 and FIR No.155 of 2024 of P.S. Bomraspet in respect of the petitioners. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 to stay all further proceedings in FIR No.154 of 2024 and FIR No.155 of 2024 of P.S. Bomraspet including the arrest of the Petitioners herein pending disposal of the Writ Petition in the interests of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI RAMU NALLAMOTHU Counsel for Respondents No.1to6 :SRl G.ANIKETH REDDY,AGP FOR HOME Counsel for Respondents No.7to9 : W.P.No.35951 OF 2024 Between:

1. M. Vishnuvardhan Reddy, S/o Janardhan Reddy Aged 44 years Occu. Agnculture F/o Lagcherla Village, Mandal. Bomraspet District. Vikarabad, rep. by his wife M. Harika.

2. Bogamoni Suresh, S/o Gopal Aged 40 years Occu. Camera tvlen R/o Lagcherla Village, Mandal. Bomraspet District. Vikarabad, rep. by his wife p. Ashwini Basappa @ Gundemoni Basappa, Agriculture Lagcherla Village, IVlandal his wife Radhika. S/o Venkappa, aged 43 years Occu. . Bomraspet District. Vikarabad, rep. by 3 AND

1. The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. ...PETITIONERS 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 I The Director General of Police, State of Telangana, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad The Superintendent of Police, Vikarabad District at Vikaraba<J. Sub Divisional Police Officer, Parigi Dist. Vikarabad. Circle lnspector of Police, Kodangal Dist. Vikarabad. Sub lnspector of Police, Bomraspet, Dist. Vikarabad. Sri N. SrinivasRetdy, S/o Sathyanarayanan Reddy Aged 50 years Occu. Sub Divisional Police Officer, Viliarabad Sub Division, Vikarabid Town and District. Sri. Kana Kishan, S/o Chandya Naik Aged 55 years Occu. MRO Dudyal Rl/o Narsapur thanda village, Narayankhed MandaI Dist. Sangareddy. Sri B Janaiah, S/o not known to the Petitioner Occu. DCRB DSp, Vikarabad, Dist. Vikarabad ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction more one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondent Nos.3 to 6 in registering the FIR No.1s4 of 2024 and FIR No.155 of 2024 of P.S. Bomraspet pertaining to the same incident which is the subject matter of FIR No.153 of 2024 of p.s. Bomraspet as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Art.14 and 21 ol constitution of lndia and consequenfly quash the FIR No.154 ot 2024 and FIR No.'155 of 2024 of P.S. Bomraspet in respect of the petitioners. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 to stay all further proceedings in FIR No.l 54 of 2024 and FIR No.'155 of 2024 ot P.S. Bomraspet including the arrest of the Petitioners herein pending disposal of the Writ Petition in the interests of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI T.V.RAMANA RAO Counsel for Respondents No.1to6 :SRl G.ANIKETH REDDY,AGP FOR HOME Counsel for Respondents No.7to9 : -- W.P.No.36532 OF 2024 Between:

1. Devadass @ Devidas Pawar Nayak, S/o Heerya Nayak, aged 20 years Occu- Agriculture FJo H.No.4-7, Pulicharla Kunta Thanda, Lagcherla Post, Mandal- Bomraspet, District_ Vikarabad

2. Gopal Naik @ Pathlavith Gopal Naik, Sio Hari Chandar Nayak, Aged 52 years Ociu- Agricu-lture Rl/o H.No.4-412, Pulicharla Kunta Thanda, Lagcherla Post, Mandal- Bomraspet Dis! Vikarabad

3. Lokya Naik @ Lokesh, S/o Pathlavath Ramulu Aged 22 years.Occu- Agriculture Fyo H.No.3-86, Totibanda Tanda, Lagcherla_ Post, Mandal- Bomraspet, District- Vikarabad Rep. by his father Pathlavath Ramulu 4. Sevya Naik @ Pathlavath Sevya, Aged 32 years Occu- Agriculture H.No.3-84, Rotibanda Tanda, Lagcherla Post, Mandal- Bomraspet Vikarabad. Vithal Naik @ Pathlavath Vithal Nayak, S/o Pathlavath Badrya Nayak aged 47 yearc Occu- Agriculture F!/o H.No.4-5l2, Pulicharla Kunta Tanda, Lagcherla Post, Mandal- Bomraspet, Dist- Vikarabad Rl/o Dist- 5 ...PETITIONERS AND 1 2 3 4 5 The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad The Director General of Police, State of Telangana, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad The Superintendent of Police, Vikarabad District at Vikarabad. Sub Divisional Police Officer, Parigi Dist- Vikarabad. Circle lnspector of Police, Kodangal Dist- Vikarabad.

6. Sub lnspector of Police, Bomraspet, Dist- Vikarabad. 7. Sri. N. Srinivas Reddy, S/o Sathyanarayanan Reddy Aged 50 years Occu- Sub Divisional Police Officer, Vikarabad Sub Division, Vikarabad Town and District.

8. Sri. Karra Kishan, S/o Chandya Naik Aged 55 years Occu- MRO Dudyal Rl/o Narsapur thanda village, Narayankhed trr'landaI Dist- Sangareddy.

9. Sri B. Janaiah, S/o not known to the Petitioner Occu- DCRB DSP, Vikarabad, Dist- Vikarabad ,..RESPONDENTS Petition under A(icle 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction more one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondent Nos.3 to 6 in registering the FIR No..1 54 of 2O24 and FIR No.155 ot 2024 of P.S. Bomraspet pertaining to the same incident which is the subject matter of FIR No.153 of 2024 of P.S. Bomraspet as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Art.14 and 21 of Constitution of lndia and consequenfly quash the FIR No.154 of 2024 and FtR No.155 of 2024 oI pS. Bomraspet in respect of the petitioners. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 FIR No.154 of 2024 & FIR No.155 of 2024 of p.S. Bomraspet including the arrest of the Petitioners herein pending disposat of the Writ Petition in the interests of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI T.V.RAMANA RAO .Counsel for Respondents No.1to6:SRl G.ANIKETH REDDY,AGp FOR HOME Counsel for Respondents No.7to9 : -- W.P.No.36554 OF 2024 Between: vijay @_Pathlavath vij3y, S/o. Badya Naik Aged 25 years occu. Agriculture R/o H.No.3-75, Roti Banda Tanda, Lagctierla post, [/andal.'Bomraspet, Oisi- VX]iaOiO. ...PETITIONER AND 1 2 o J 4 5 6 7 8 The State of Telangana, rep. by its Prinoipal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. The Director General of Police, State of Telangana, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad. The Superintendent of Police, Vikarabad District at Vikarabad. Sub Divisional Police Officer, Parigi Dist. Vikarabad. Circle Inspector of Police, Kodangal Dist. Vikarabad. Sub lnspector of Police, Bomraspet, Dist. Vikarabad. Sri. N. Srinivas Reddy, S/o Sathyanarayanan Reddy Aged 50 years Occu. Sub Divisional Police Officer, Vikarabad Sub Division, Vikarabad Town and District. Sri. Karra Kishan, S/o Chandya Naik Aged 55 years Occu. MRO Dudyal Rl/o Narsapur thanda village, Narayankhed Mandal Dist- Sangareddy. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction more one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondent Nos.3 to 6 in registering the FIR No.154 of 2024 of P.S. Bomraspet pertaining to the same incident which is the subject matter of FIR No.153 ot 2024 of P.S. Bomraspet as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Art.14 and 21 of Constitution of lndia and consequently quash the FIR No.154 of 2024 o'f P.S. Bomraspet in respect of the Petitioner/A'l3. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 to stay all further proceedings in FIR No.154 of 2024 of P.S. Bomraspet including the arrest of the Petitioner herein/A13 pending disposal of the Wdt Petition in the interests of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI T.V.RAMANA RAO Counsel for Respondents No.1to6 :SRl G.ANIKETH REDDY,AGP FOR HOME Counsel for Respondents No.7to8: The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION Nos.l59l AND 2884 0F 2025 3s951 36s32 AND 36554 0F 2024 COMMON ORDER: Heard Mr. M.A.K. Mukheed, Mr. T.V.Ramana Rao, Mr. Ramu Nallamothu, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr,Aniketh Reddy, leamed Asst. Govt. Pleader for Home, appearing for State.

2. These writ petitions are filed to declare the action of the respondent Nos.3 to 6 in registering FIR Nos. 154 and 155 of2024 of P.S. Bomraspet pertaining to the same incident which is the subject matter of FIR No.l53 of 2024 and consequently quash the proceedings in Cr.Nos.154 and 155 of 2024.

3. In the light of the same, it is apt to refer the relevant particulars of the writ petitions, petitioners, FIRs, date, time and place of the incident and offences registered, against the petitioners in all the aforesaid crimes and the same are extracted below:- 2 KL,J W.P.No.l59l of 2025and batch WP No. ts91/ 2025 Petitioner/s ranking Cr.Nos. A.f5 in 153124, A.l8 in 154124 and A.3 in 155124 of P. S.Bomraspet Name of the complainant & Designation N.Srinivasa Reddy, Sub Divisional Police Offrcer, Vikarabad in FIR No.l53, Place, date & time of the incident Offences Anjaneya Temple, Lagcherla t[.1t.2024 12.20PM 2884t23 Karra Kishan, MRO, Dudyal in FIR No.l54 Hanuman Temple, I-agcherla I t.tt.2024 Time not specifically mentioned D. Janaiah, DCRB,DSP Vikarabad, in FIR No.155 of2024, Cherllapuram Venkataiah's residence, Lagcherla P.l is A.38 in FIR No.153, A.21 in FIR No.154 & A.l5 in FIR No.l55 of l 2024, P.2 is A.47 in FIR No.l53. A.l0 in FIR No.l54 & A.11 in FIR No.155 of 2024, P.3 is A.l0 in FIR No.153, A.5 in FIR No.154 & A.7 in FIR No.155 of2024, P.4 is A.47 in FIR No.l53, A.l0 in FIR No.154 & A. No.ll in FIR No.155 of2024, Sections 6l (2) re1(2), r9l(3) 132,t09, 12r(1), t26(Z), 324 (4) with 190 BNS, Section 3 of PDPPA Sections ret(2), le1(3) 132,t09, 121(r), t26(2), 324 (4) with 190 BNS, Section 3 of PDPPA Sections 19t(2), lel(3) t32,t09, 121(l), 126(2), 324 (4) with 190 BNS, Section 3 of PDPPA 3 KL,J W.P.No. l59l of 2025and batch P.5 is ,4.36 in FIR No.153, A.19 in FIR No.l54 & A.13 in FIR No 155 of 2024, P.6 is A.42 in FIR No.153, A.16 in FIR No.l54 and spet and as such I am well acquainted with the facts of the case. P.l is A. No. 11 in FIR No. 153, A.6 in FIR No. 154 & A.No.9 in FIR No. 155 of 2024 P.2 is A.2 in FIR No. 153, A..6 in FIR No. 154 & A.No.8 in FIR No. 155 of2024. P.3 is A. 13 in FIR No. 153, A.7 in FIR No. 154 & A.9 in FIR No. 155 of2024. 35951t . 24 4 KL,J W.P.No.l59l of 2025and batch 36532/ 24 36554t 24 P.l is A.4 in FIR No. 153, A.l2 in FIR No. 154 & A.l in FIR No. 155 of2024. P.2 is A.5in FIR No. 153, A.8 in FIR No. I54 & A.No.5 in FIR No. 155 of2024. P.3 is A.8 in FIR No. 153, A.15 in FIR No. 154 & A.4 in FIR No. 155 of2024. Sole petitioner, ,4'.6 in FIR No. 153, A.13 in FIR No. 154

4. In all the writ petitions, the petitioners are residents of Bala Naik Thanda, Roti Banda Thanda, Pulicherla kunta Thanda and Lagcherla Village, Bomraspet Mandal, Vikarabad District. They are accused in the aforesaid three crimes. On the complaints todged by the aforesaid complainants, the Police Bornraspet registered the aforesaid three crimes.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners 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 5 KL,J W.P.No.1591 of 2025and batch the petitioners herein. The allegations leveled against the petitioners herein are same. Therefore, registration of subsequent Crime Nos.154 and I 55 of 2024 by Bomraspet Police, are liable to be quashed.

6. The allegations leveled against the petitioners 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 is impermissible and liable to be quashed. He has also placed reliance on the principle laid down in Smt. K.Mathamma vs. State o[ Telanganar and Akbaruddln Owdisi vs.'State of A.P. represented by its Principal Secretary; tlome'Department?. With the said submissions, he sought to quash the Cr.Nos.154 and 155 of 2024.

7. Whereas, learned Asst.Govt.Pleader for Home, would contend that the allegations leveled against the petitioners in the aforesaid thrcc 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 petitioners herein are serious. At the instance of A.1, the petitioners herein attacked the District Collector, Special Officer, ' 2022 (l)ALT (Crt) 12 (T.S.) ,2013 (6) ALT t0l (SB) 5 KL,J W.P.No.159l of 2025and batch KADA and other offlcials, who went to the spot for the purpose of conducting public hearing. They have formed into unlawful assembly and attacked the said Special Ofhcer, 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 dated29.04.2022.Hehas placed reliance on the principle laid down in TT Antony vs. State of Kerala3 and Jacob John vs. State of Manipura in common order dated 29.04.2022 in Crl.P.No.1232 of

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 ofhcials went to the outskirts of Lagcherla Village for the purpose of conducting public hearing with regard to establishment of Pharma C_ompany. 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 , (2ool) 6 scc 181 a (2020) Suprerne (Manipur) 176 7 KL,J W.P.No.159l of 2025and batch 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 bonafidelv 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 theln to the village

9. It is turther alleged that in Lagcherla village, the people of Lagchrela, Bala Naik Thanda, Roti Banda Thanda and Pulicherla kunta Thanda formed themselves intci an unlawfu I assembly with stones, sticks and Chili 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 Olficer, 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 OfIicer, 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 ofhis neck E KL,J W.P.No.l59l of 2025and batch 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 all the aforesaid three crimes, the names of the some of the petitioners are not there. There is no allegation against the petitioners herein in the aforesaid three complaints that the petitioners conspired with other accused and attacked the District Collector, --Speeial Officer, KADA and other officials who came to Lagcherla village for conducting public hearing. In the remand report, there are certain allegatibns against the petitioners herein. In all the aforesaid three complaints, the date of incident is 11.11.2024 and time of incident is around 12.20 P.M 1 l. In all the three complaints in the aforesaid three cnmes specificalty 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 pulpose of conducting public hearing. They have also raised slogans 'go back Pharma'. They are opposing establishment of Pharma Company in the 9 KI,J W.P.No.l59l of 2025and batch 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.

12. As discussed supra, leamed counsel for the petitioners would contend that the allegations in all the aforesaid complaints are 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 also principle laid down by the Apex Court and this Court in catena of decisions.

13. In the light of the said submission, it is relevant to note that in TT Antony (supra), the Apex Court had an occasion to deal with the registration of multiple F.l.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 10 KL,J W.P.No.159l of 2025and batch Diary by the Officer In-Charge of the Police Station, can be regarded as First lnformation Report under Section 154 of Cr.P.C; on subsequent information, the same offence will be covered by Section 162 of Cr.P.C.

14. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment is extracted below:- A just balance between the fundamental rights of the citizens under Articles 19 and 2l of the Constitution and the expansive power of the police to investigate a cognizable offencc has to.be- struck -by the Court. There cannot be any controversy that sub-section (8) of Section I73 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. [n 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 filirtg the final report under Section 173 1 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 stahJtory po*erof 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 1t KL,J W.P.No.l59l of 2025and batch the course of the same transaction and in respect of rvhich pursuant to the llrst FIR either investigation is underway or final report under Section I 73(2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate, may be a fit case for exercise ofpower under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or under Article 226122'7 of the Constitution.

15. Relying on the said judgment, in Akbaruddin Owaisi (supra), 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 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 ZZ6l2Zi of the Constitution of lndia. t2 KL,J W.P.No.l59l of 2025and batch

16. In Upkar Singh (supra), the Apex Court clarifuing 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 amount to an improvement on the facts mentioned in the original complaint, hence will be prohibited under Section 162 of the Code.

17. In Babu Bai vs. State of Gujarats, 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 occulTence or are in regard to the incidents which are two or more parts of the same transaction. If the answer is in the aff,rmative, 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 5 (2010) 12 SCC2s4 13 KL,J W.P.No.l59 t of 2025and batch comes forward with a different version or counterclaim, investigation on both the FIRs has to be conducted." Ihis Court lteld that the relevant enquiry is whether two or more F[Rs relate to the sante incident or relate to incidents rm part of the same transdctions If the Court were to apnclude in the affirmatiie. the subsesuent FIRI are liable to be quashed. Howeyer ,wh ere the subsequent FIR relates to investi ation mav proceed different incidents or crimes or is in the form of a counter- e also in this claim. context Chirrashivrai v. State of A.P fChirraSlivraj v . State of A.P., (2010) 14 SCC 444: (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 7571 and Chirag M. Pathak v. Dollyben Kantilal Patel lChirag M. Pathak v. Dollyben Kantilal Patel, (2018) I SCC 330 : (2018) I SCC (Cri) 3691

18. In Anju Chaudhary vs. State of UP6, the Apex Court had an occasion to deal with the concept of registration of second FIR at length. In paragraph No.14, the Apex Court held as lollows:

14. On the plain construction of the language and scheme ofsections 154, 156 and 190 of the Code, it cannot be construed or suggested that there can bc more than one FIR about an occurrence. However, the opening words of Section 154 suggest that every information ielating to commission of a cognizable offence shall be reduced to writing by the officer in-charge of a Police Station. This implies that there has to be the first information report about an incident which constifutes a cogrizable offence. The purpose of registering of an FIR is to set the machinery of criminat investigation into u zot: 16; scc ts+ j t4 KL,J W.P.No. 1591 of 2025and batch motion, whrch culminates with filing of the police report in terms of Section 173(2) of the Code. It will, thus, be appropriate to follow the settled principle that there cannot be two FIRS registercd for the same offence. However, where the incident is separate; offences are similar or different, or even wherc the subsequent crime is of such magnitule that it does not fall within the ambit and scope of the FIR rccorded first, then a second FIR could be registered. The most important aspect is to examine the inbuilt safeguards provided by the legislature in the very language of Section 154 of the Code. These safeguards can be safely deduced from the principle akin to double jeopardy, rule of fair investigation and further to prevcnt abuse of power by thc investigating authority of the police. Therefbre, second FIR for the same incident cannot be registered. Of course, the Investigating Agency has no determinative nght. It is only a right to investigate in accordance with the provisions of the Codc. The filing of report upon completion of investigation, either for cancellation or alleging commission of an offence, is a matter which once filed before the court of competent jurisdiction attains a kind of finaliti aS fdr as police is Cotlcerhed, may be in a given case, subject to the right of further investigation but wherever the investigation has been completed and a person is found to be prima facie guilty of cornrnitting an offence or otherwise, reexamination by the investigating agency on its own should not bc permitted merely by registering another FIR with regard to the same offence. If such protection is not given to a suspect, then possibility of abuse of investigating powers by the Police cannot be ruled out- It is with this intention in mind that such interpretation should bd given to Section 154 of the Code, as it would not onty further the object of-law but even that of just and fair investigation. More so, in the backdrop of the settled canons of criminal jurisprudence, re-investigation or de novo investigation is beyond the competence ofnot only the investigating agency but even that ofthe learned Magistrate. The courts have taken this view primarily for the reason that it l5 KL,J W.P.No.159l of 2025and batch would be opposed to the scheme of the Code and more particularly Section 167(2) of the Code. [Ref. Rita Nag v. State of West Bengal [(2009) 9 SCC 1291 and Vinal,Tyagi v. Irshad Ali @ Deepak & Ors. (SLP (Crl) No.9l85- 91 86 of 2009 of the same date).

19. In Kari Chowdhary vs. Sita Devi7, in paragraph No.1l, the Apex Court held as follows:- "ll. Leamed counsel adopted an altemative contention that once the proceedings initiated under FIR No. 135 ended in a final report the polioe had no authority to register a second FIR and number it as FIR No. 208. Of course the legal position is that therc cannot be two FIRs against the same accused in respect of the same case. But when there arc rival versions in respect of tlie same episode, they would normally take the shape of two diflerent FIRs and investigation can be carried on under both ofthem by the same investigating agency. Even that apart, the report submitted to the court styling it as FIR No. 208 of 1998 need be considered as an information submitted to the court regarding the new discovery made by thc police during investigation that persons not named in FIR No. 135 are the rcal culprits. To quash the said proceedings merely on the ground that final report had been laid in FIR No. 135 is, to say the least, too technical. The ultimate object of every investigation is to find out whether the offences alleged have been committed and, if so, who have committed it." (Emphasis supplied). i

20. On consideration of the said principles laid down in the said judgments, in the State of Rajasthan VS. Surender Singh Rathores, ' zooz 1r; scc z t a I 2025 Law Suit (SC) 249 l6 KL,J W.P.No-1591 of 2025and batch the Apex Court laid down the following principles with regard to the permissibility of registration of second FIR:-

9. From the above conspectus of judgrnents, intcr alia, the following principles emerge regarding the permissibility of the rcgistration of a second FIR:

9.1 When the second FIR is counter-complaint or presents a rival version of a set of facts, in reference to which an earlier FIR already stands registered.

9.2 When the ambit of the two FIRs is different even though they may arise from the same set of circumstances.

9.3 When investigation and/or othcr avenues reveal thc earlier FIR or set ol lacts to be part of a larger conspiracy.

9.4 When investigation and/or persons related to the incident bring to the light hitherlo unknown facts or circumslances.

9.5 Where the incident is separate; offences are similar or different

21. On examination of the facts of the said case wherein the first FIR refers to a particular incident, action taken therein was limited, the second FIR pertains to the larger issue of widespread corruption in the concerned department and, therefore, is much larger in its scope than the previous FlR. On consideration of the said facts, the Apex Court held that two incidents,aie different and distinct. Therefore, registration of second FIR is permissible. 17 KL,I W.P.No.159l of 2025and batch

22. In Arnab Ranjan Goswami ys Union of Indiae, the Apex Courl, 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. 2l .04.2020, the facts mentioned in all the F.l.Rs. was the same, 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

23. 1n Krishna Lal Chawla vs. State of UPr0 reiterated the principle laid down in TT Antony (supra), and Upkar Singh (Supra) and held as follows

7. Thb Court in Upkar Sinsh [Uokar Sinsh v, Ved Prakash, (2000 13 SCC 292:2005 SCC Cril 2Ill has clearlv stated that anv further complaint bv the same comolainant asainst the sane accused. after the case has alreadv been reeistered. will be deemed to be an imorovement from the orisinal comolaint Thoush Unkar Sin Dkar Sinsh v. Ved Prakash, Q000 13 SCC 292 : 2005 SCC ) 21 1l was rendered in the context of a case involvins coeniz.able offences, the same principle would also aoolv where a person gives information of a non-coenizabk offence snd 9 AIR 2020 SC 2386 '0 AIR 2021 SC 1381 18 KL,J W.P.No.159 t of 2025and batch subseouentlv lodses a Drivate comDlaint with resDect to the same offence dssir.st the same accused Derson. Evefi 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.

24. In C. Muniappan (Supra), the Apex Court held that two or more crimes can be clubbed if the circumstances and lacts indicate that the second crime was connected or was a result of the first crime. Tlie 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 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 nothins but a fall out of the first occurrence. The damage caused to the public transport vehicles and the consequential buming of the University bus remained part of one and the same incident. Merely because 19 KL,J W.P.No.l-591 of 2025and batch 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 Z I Antony v. State of Kerala l(2001) 6 SCC 181 :2001 SCC (Cri) 10a81).

25. 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.

26. In Akbaruddin Owaisi (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

39. Let us now briefly refer to the tests which should, ordinarily, be applied to determine whether or not the two FIRs undcr consideration relate to the same incident/transaction. The law recognizes a common trialora common FIR beinp reeistered for one series of acts so connected tosether as to form the same transaction as contem lated under Section 220 Cr.P.C. The exoresston m its ve f 6 tnc able o 'same trsnsaction exact definition (Ani,u Chaudha rv. o013 Cri LJ 770: Mohan Baitha v. State of Bihall. The distinction 20 KL,J W.P.No.l59l of 2025and batch between two FIRs relatinq to the same incident, and two rent incidents or occurrences of the (Babubhai) FIRs relatins to same incident, should be carefullv examined. :2010 AIR SCW 5126. The merits of each case must be considered to determine whether a subsequentlv registered FIR is a second FIR relatins to the ssme incident or offence or is based upon distinct and different facts and whether its scope of inauirv is entirelv different or noL 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 to determine given case. (Anju Chaudhary) The tes whether lwo FIRs can be permitted to exist, is whether the two incidents are identical or not. (Ram Lal Narans. (1979 Cri LJ 134il.

40. The conceDt of "sameness" has been given a restricted meaning. In order to examine the imoact of one or more FIRs. the Court has to rationalke the facts und circumslances of each case and lhen aDplv the test of 'sameness' to find out whethcrbpliL FIRs relate to the same incident and to the same occurrerrce;and whether thev are in reeard to incidents which are two or more pa rts of the relste comDletelv to th)o distinct same transaction or occurrences.It is onlv if the second FIR relates to the same cause of action, the same incident, there is sameness of occurrence and an attemDt has been made to improvke the case. would the second FIR be liable to be quashed In cases 2t KI,J W.P.No.l59l of 2025atrd batch 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 hnd place in the first FIR or that the principle of "sameness" is attracted. (Babublrai, (2010 AIR SCW 5126); Surendra Kaushik v . State of Uuar Pradesh-2}1 3 CrIIJ I 570).

41.It is not possible to enunciate any formula of universal application to determine whether two or more acts constitute the sarne transaction. They are to be gathered lrom 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 subsidiary, so as to result in one continuous action. Where there is commonality ol 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 ol' erent times with involvement of differen t Dersons. there is no commonalitv, the ourDose differen t, thev emerge from different thereof' ,'s circumstances, and woukl not form Dart of the same transactio n. (A niu Chaudh aru, (2013 Cri LJ 770). 22 KL,J W.P.No.159 t ot2025and batch

27. In Jakka Vinod Kumar Reddy vs. The State of Telanganarr, this Court discussed various decisions held that in following cases multiple FIRs are maintainable:

20. The sum and substance of the above said iudsments is that therc is no embarso for resistration of 'o FIRI o the prounds: followins circumstanc fu) where the allesations made in both the FIRs are from different sDectrum . where there are dtfferent versions from sanre set o cts ma constitute di rent o ences k) where there are two distinct offences havinp different ingredients: where the alle tions are erent and distinct e when there are rival verstons rn ect o same thev would normallv take shaoe of two different FIRs and investisation can be carried out under both of them bv the same Investig,atins Asencv. The decision in Jakka Vinod Kumar Reddy (Supra) was subsequently followed by this Court in K. Mathamma (Supra).

28. Relying on the said principles, this Court in'brt.p.No.tZlZ of 2022 held that registration of multiple FIRs is imper'missible, if they relate to the occurrence of same incident, involve same parties and arise out of the same cause of action. Registration of multiple " zozrlz; eI-r 1c.D r71 (Ts) 23 KL,J W.P.No.l59l of 2025and batch FIRs is impermissible even in cases of different incidents if such incidents form part of the same transaction. In other words, if the subsequent ol'fence 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 bctween 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 fiIl up the lacunae in the earlier complaint.

29. In Sreekumar vs. State of Keralar2, the Apex Court held that where the subsequent FIR was registered on different set of allegations by a diflerent person, the said FIR is maintainable

30. In Jakir Hussain Kosangi vs. State of Andhra pradeshl3 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 vanous vlctlms are " (20t 8) 4 SCC 579 tr 2u7(5) ALT 342 24 KI-,J W.P.No,159l of 2025and batch 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. 3 I . 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 612010 of the POCSO, 2012. On examination of the facts therein, Manipur High Court at Imphal held that successive FIRs for the same incident are permissible if they pertain to diflerent 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.

32. 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 I I . I I .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.l53 z5 KL,J W.P.No. I59 I of 2025and batch of 2024 for the offences under Sections 61 (2), 191(2), 191(3) 132,109, l2l(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 fiom 7th respondent at 14.00 hours on 11.11.2024 and they have registered the aforesaid crime at 14.00 hours. Admittedly, names of some of the petitioners are not there in the complaint dated I I . I 1.2024 of 7tt' respondent.

33. On the complaint lodged by 8'h 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, l2l(l), 126(2),324 (4) read with 190 BNS, Section 3 of PDPPA. Names of some of the petitioners are 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.

34. On the complaint lodged by 9ft respondent, the very same police, registered a case in Cr.No.l55 of 2024 at 16.00 hours for the 26 KL,J W.P.No.l59l of 2025and batch offences under Section 191(2), 191(3) 132,109,121(l), 126(2),324 (4) read with I90 BNS, Section 3 of PDPPA .

35. In Cr.No.l53 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. l5 4 of 2024, place of incident is mentioned as Anjaneyaswamy temple, Lagcherla village. In the complaint in Cr.No.l55 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 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.

36. [t 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.S 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 leamed Asst.Govt.Pleader, with regard to the same is that 27 KL,J W.P.No.l59l of 2025and batch 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. flowever, the complaints were prepared b1. Writer of Bom-rapet 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 leamed Asst. Govt. Pleader 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,h4ve signed on the same. The said facts would show the intention of the respondents in implicating the petitioner in the aforesaid three crimes. 28 KL,J W.P.No.l59l of 2025and batch

37. It is trite to note that leamed Asst.Govt.Pleader, fairly admitted that the place of incident in Cr.No.l53 of 2024 and 154 of 2024 is one and the same.

38. It is also relevant to note that in all the aforesaid three FIRs, the names of some of the petitioners are not there. According to the respondent Nos.7 to 9, A.l is the main conspirator, on his instigation and assistance both financial and moral etc., the petitioners herein formed into unlawful assembly, attacked the District Collector, Special Officer, KADA and other officials with an intention to kill them. Except the said allegation, there is no other allegation against the petitioners herein that they were present were present physically at the scene ofoffence and participated in the said attack. Vide order dated 29.11.2024 in W.P.No.32798 of 2024, this Court quashed the proceedings in Cr.No.154 and 155 of the very same police station against A.1, an Ex-MLA.

39. 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 petitioners impermissible. If they relates to the occurrence of same incident and investigation is same, arising out of 29 KI,J W.P.No.l59l of 2025and batch 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 olfences are identical or not or commonality between the accused and the complainant exists or not Registration of subsequent FIRs are impermissible, if they are filed only to improve the case of the prosecution or to fill up lacunae in the earlier complaint.

40. 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 complainants. 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 petitioners is impermissible and are liable to be quashed

41. The complaints in Cr.No.154 and 155 of 2024 and statements, if any, recorded by the Investigating Ofhcer 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.l53 of 2024. 30 KL,J W.P.No.l59l of 2025and batch

42. Yide order dated 29.11 .2024 in W.P.No.32798 of 2024, thts Court quashed the proceedings in the present Cr.No.154 and 155 of the very same police station against A. l, an Ex-MLA. This Court held that 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 petitioners is impermissible and are liable to be quashed. No appeal is preferred against the said order. Therefore, the said order has become final.

43. In the light of the said submission, it is reievant to extract paragraph Nos.15 and 16 of the judgment of the Apex Court in Hazi Iqbal @ Bala through SPOA vs. State of flPra and the same are as follows:-

15. At this stage, we would like to observe something important. Whenever an accused comes before the Court invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances the ra Order dated 08.08.2023 in Crt.A.No.2345 of2o23 of the Apex Court. 31 KL,J W.P.No. I 591 of 2025and batch Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely. We say so because once the complainant decides to proceed against the accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking personal vengeance, etc., then he would ensure that the FlR/compiaint is very well drafted with all the necesszry pleadings. The complainant would ensure that the averments made in the FlR/complaint are such that they disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence. Therefor'e, it will not be just enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FlR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constihrte the alleged offence are disclosed or not- ln frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to read in belween the lines. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself only to thc stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation. Take for instance the case on hand. Multiple FIRs have been registered over a period of tirne. It is in thc background of such circumstances the registration of multiple FIRs assumes importance, thereby attracting the issue ofwreaking vengeance out ofprivate or personal gnrdge as alleged. 16. In State of Andhra Pradesh v. Golconda Linsa Swamy, (2004) 6 SCC 522, a two-Jtdge Bench of this Court elaborated on the types of materials the High Court can assess to quash an FIR. The Court drew a fine distinction between consideration of materials that were tendered as evidence and appreciation of such evidence. Only such material that manifestly fails to prove the accusation in the FIR can be considered for quashing an FlR. The Court held:- "5. . ..Authority of the court exists for advancement ofjustice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to producc injustice, the court has power to prevent such abuse. It would be an abuse of the process of the court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prglEnt promotion ofjustice. In exercise of the powers court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation or continirance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the court may examine the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the complainant has aileged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto. 32 KL,J W.P.No.l59l of 2025and batch

6. In R.P. Kapur v. State ofPunjab, AIR 1960 SC 866 : 1960 Cri Ll 1239, this Court summarised some categories of cases where inherent power can and should be exercised to quash the proceedings : (AIR p.869, para 6) (i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance e.g. want of sanction; (ii) where the allegations in the first information report or complaint taken at its face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged; (iii) where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge.

7. In dealing with the last category, it is important to bear in mind the distinction betwecn a case where there is no legal evidence or where thcre is evidence which is clearly inconsistent with the accusations made, and a case where there is legal evidence which, on appreciation, may or may not support the accusations. When exercising jurisdiction undcr Section 482 of the Code, the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be sustained. That is thc function of the trial Judge. Judicial process, no doubt should not be an instrument of oppression, or, needless harassment. Court should be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing process. lest it would be an instrument in the hands of a private complarnant to unleash vendetta to harass any person needlessly. At the same time the section is not an instrument handed over to an accused to short-circuit a prosecution and bring about its sudden death....." (Emphasis supplicd)

44. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, these writ petitions are allowed. The proceedings in Cr.No.154 and 155 of 2024 pending on the frle of Bornraspet Police Station against the petitioners herein are hereby quashed. The investigating Officer in Cr.No.l53 of 2024 pending on the file of Bornraspet Police Station is at liberty to record J-1 KL,J W.P.No.1591 of 2025and batch 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 thc Investigating Officer in Cr.No.154 and 155 of 2024 shall be treated as statements in Cr.No.l53 of 2024. iii) However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed. To, //TRUE COPY// SD/.S. MALLTKARJUNA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ."-.. \ -.-\ ,i ;' I t)-' SECTION OFFICER

1. The Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Buildings, State of Telangana, Hyderabad.

2. The Director General of Police, State of Telangana, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad 3. The Superintendent of Police, Vikarabad District at Vikarabad. 4. The Sub Divisional Police Officer, Parigi Dist. Vikarabad. 5. The Circle lnspector of Police, Kodangal Dist. Vikarabad. 6. The Sub lnspector of Police, Bomraspet, Dist. Vikarabad. 7. One CC to SRI M.A.K.MUKHEED, Advocate. [OPUC] 8. Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT] 9. Two CD Copies. BSK BS HIGH COURT DATED:21 10412025 COMMON ORDER rfl-" ( ,t ) WP.No. 1591 & 2884 OF Zl2s,asdiri 36532 & 36554 0F 2024 1r{ E STA 14: 2o nAr ziA -' it'ar * €) ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS { \s 6