TT Antony v. State of Kerala

13.Ch. Srinu, s7o Ch. Venkaiah, Aged 44 years, Occ. Business, H.No.B-4lB/83, Ayyapareddy Gudem, Shankarpally, Ranga Reddy District.

14. Ch. Chandraiah, s/o Ch. Veeraiah, Aged 65 years, Occ. Business, H.No.8-4, Ayyapareddy Gudem, Shankarpally, Ranga Reddy District. AND ...PETITIONERS i { I I i I I I i I i l

1. The State of Telangana (Home), Rep by its Principal Secretary, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

2. The Director General of Police, State of Telangana, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad. 3. The Additional Director General of Police - ClD, State of Telangana, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad. Cyberabad.

4. The Commissioner of Police, Gachibowli, Cyberabad District. 5. Station House Officer, Shankarpally Police Station, Cyberabad District. 6. Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime lnvestigation Department(RO), 7. lnspector of Police, Crime lnvestigation Department, RO-Cyberabad. 8. Pasham Venugopal Reddy, S/o Pasham Jagga Reddy, Aged about 48 years, Occ. Business, R/o H.No.2-2-1 105137|D, Flat No.201 , P,J.Reddy Enclave, Tilak Nagar, Nallakunta, Hyderabad.

9. Kothwal Rama Rani, Wo Sanjeeva Reddy, Aged about 38 years, Occ. Household, R/o H.No.2-1 19, Madhava Reddy Complex, l.D.A. Bollaram, tvledak

10. Balannagari Anudeep Reddy, S/o Balannagari Vema Reddy, Aged about 35 years, Occ. Business, R/o H.No.5-4311 , Vegetable Market, Shankarpalli, Ranga Reddy District.

11. Balannagari Sudharani, W/o Balannagari Vema Reddy. Aged about 56 years, Occ. Household, Rl/o H.No.5-43/1, Vegetable Market. Shankarpalli, Ranga ReddY District ...RESP.NDENTS 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 (a) lssue a Writ pf Mandamus declaring lhe action of Respondent Nos.2 to 7 in registering FIR No.2'12 of 2018, FIR No.213 of 2018, and FIR No.337 of 2022 on the file of Shankarpally Police Station, Cyberabad District which are presently pending on the file of Deputy Superintendent of Polrce, Crime lnvestigation DepartmenG(RO), Cyberabad, for the same incident, as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia, (b) Quash FIR Nos.21 2 of 2018, 213 of 2018, and 337 of 2022 on the file of Shankarpally Police Station, Cyberabad District which are oresently pending on the file of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime lnvestigation Department- (RO), Cyberabad, (c) Direct that any further investigation in relation to the same facts be conducted only under FIR No.193 of 2018 on the file of Shankarpally Police Station, Cyberabad District which are presently pending on the file of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime lnvestigation Department-(RO), Cyberabad and that subsequent complaints be treated as statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C 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 direct that any further investigation in relation to the same facts be conducted only under FIR No.193 of 2018 on the file of Shankarpally Police Station, Cyberabad District which are presentiy pending on the file of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime lnvestigation Department-(RO), Cyberabad and that subsequent complaints be treated as statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C and thereby direct the Respondent Nos.2 and 7 to sensitize the subordinate Police Officers about the Judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of lndia in relation to the illegality of registration of subsequent FlRs pertaining to the same incident for which an FIR has already been registered and to be in strict compliance of the Judgments of the Supreme Court reported in (2001) 6 SCC 181 TT Antony Vs. State of Kerala, (2013) 6 SCC 348 Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah Vs. Central Bureau of lnvestigation and (2021) 1 SCC 1 Amish Devgan Vs. Union of lndia, in the Interests of justice, pending disposal of the above writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. KATIKA RAVINDER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1to7: GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent Nos.8to1 1:- The Court made the following: ORDER .,., THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR W.P.No. 14a67 of 2O25 ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Ciovernment Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 7, and with their consent the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at admission stage.

2. ilaving regard to the manner of disposal of the u,rit petition and the nature of lls involved, this Court is of the view that notice to unofhciai respondent Nos.8 to 11 is not necessary for adjudication of the present Writ Petition

3. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that respondent Nos.2 to 7 are registering multiple FIRs on the hle of the sth respondent-Police Station in . respect of the same transactron/ incident r:overed by F'IR.No.193/2O18, which action of the respondents is illegat, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 &, 2L of the Constitution of India.

4. Petitioners further contends that as the respondents- authorities havir-rg already registered a case uide FlR.No. l93l2OLB, the authorities ought to not to have registered further crime as the same arisc out of the same transaction/incident, and on the other harld, the respondents-authorities ought to have treated the complaint given by the other complainants as statements under 2 i Section 161 of Cr.p.C., while registered ujde FIR.No. l9 3 /2OLg mvestigating into the first crime

5. on behalf of the petitioners it is further contended that after registering muttiple FIRs, all the cases have been transferred to CID, arld as such, alt the FIRs should have been clubbed together without registering further FIRs against the petitioners herein.

6. Per contra, learned Government pleader appearing on behalf of respondents-authorities would submit that initially casc uide FIR.No.193/2O18, dt.06.06.2O18, has been registered against the petitioncrs herein basing on the complaint made by one Ch.Mallesh ard alother, claiming that the petitioners having lured him to invest money and that he would be paid interest @ Rs. 1.5O parsa per Rs.1O0/-, and basing the a-foresaid promise, ttre complainant therein having deposited an amount of Rs.7 lakhs with thc petitioners herein. 7 . l,earned Government pleader would further submit that therea-fter similar such complaints have been received against the petitioners of resorting to criminal breach of trust and cheating, from the unofficial respondents herein; and that the authorities based on the said complaints have registered the other FIRs yrz., FIR.Nos.212, 213 and 337 of2022. ! -.' w 3 I

8. Learned Government Pleader would further submit that each of the complainant by complaint lodged by them have clairned of the petitioners having cheated them of different amounts, aud ior the sard reason, the aurhorities have registered different crimes artd are investigating thc same.

9. Learnecl Government Pleader would further submit that having regard to the scrious nature of the complaints, the authorities have tralsferred the investigation of a-11 the FIRs to CID, and the matter is being investigatcd into by the concerned CID authoritics.

10. Learned (iovernment Pleader would also submit that though the petitioners claim of the transactions /incidents to be the one and as such the authorities ought to be restrained from registered multiple FIRs zrnd being investigated into independenlly, said claim cannot be irccepled for the reason that, each of the incident/ trartszrr:tion is arr independent transaction and does not arise out of a single lralsaction, for the petitioners to seek the aforesaid relief. I1. Learned (i.overnment Pleader would further submit lhat each of the compiainal-rts have made out a specihc case against the petitioners, and since, the facts in each case are differenl., the action of the respondents-authorities in registering multiple FIRs cannot be called in question. 4 1,) I have taken note of the respective submissions madc.

13. Though the petitioner by the present Writ petition claims that the aforesaid complaints arise out of the same transaction/incident, it is to be noted that from the complaints lodged by some of the unofhcial respondents herein it appears that their grievance is not in relation to a particular transaction/incident, but is a continuous modus operandi adopted by the petitioners herein in luring the common public to invest money on the promise of making payment of interest at higher rate ard cach of the complainants having depositcd different amounts with the petitioners during different periods, this Court is of the view that the petitioners cannot claim that all the a-foresaid FIRs arise out of the same incident or tra,saction for them to approach this Court claiming that the authorities are to be restrained from registering multiple FIRs.

14. Further, a Division Bench of this Court in Jakir HussoLi,r- Kosangi and Ors., o. St@te oJ Andhra pradesh & Ors. r dealt with the issue relaLing to in what kind of cases registraLion of multiple FIRs can be done and also as to what cal be considered as single incident lcading to registration of multiple FIRs. t Ot.O+.OZ.20tZ in Writ petition Nos.29374 of 2016 and batch \ + r*3., 5

15. Further, thc said issue has also fell for considcratiorr before the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnab Ranjan Goswaml u. Union oJ Indld. qnd othersz wherein the Apex Court had held that if multipte FIRs arise out of a single incident, then only a restraint can be imposed for rcgist enng multiplc FI Rs.

16. Also, the Apex Court in thc latest decision in the case State of RaJasthan u. Surend.ra Singh Rathore0 had laid down the guidelines with rcgard to registration of multiple FIRs arising out of same transaction.

17. Sincc, in rhe facts of the case, as noted herein above, as each of the complainants approaching the respondcnts-authorities have separate grievance and the incidents having taken place at different periods based on th.e modus operandi adopted by the petitioners, though such modtts operandi adoptecl by the petitioners is same, this Court is of the vicu, that the petitioner cannot claim as a.ll the crimes arising out of s.rme Lransaction or incident for them to approach this Court seeking a direction to restrain the respondents fronl registering multiple F IRs or by considering the complaint lodged by the \ complainant as statements made under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., by I I examining them as rvitnesses. AIR 2020 SUPREME COURI 2386 2025 |NSC 248 5

18. On behalf of the petitioners, tlough learned counsel has placed reliance on an order passed by a coordinate Bench of this court in W.P.No.32798 of 2024, d,t.2g.77.2o24, this Court is of the view that the said decision of little assistance to advance the case of the petitioner, since in the a-foresaid case, the iniident complaint of is one, which had taken place on 11.11.2024, a_nd based on the aforesaid incident, multiple complaints having been lodged thereof.

19. Since, in the facts of the present case as noted herein above, the grievance of each of the complainant being different and having taken place on different dates and cause of action for each of the complaina,t having arisen on a different date, this court is of the considered view that the petitioner is not entitled to grant aly relicf in the present Writ petition.

20. Accordingly, the Writ petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed. No order as to costs.

27. Consequently, stand closed. miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall To, //TRUE COPY// SD/. M. OSMAN ALI BAIG ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SEC Skorr,"r* 1 2 J One CC to SRl. KATIKA RAVINDER REDDY, Advocate IOPUC] Two CCs to GP FOR HOME ,High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] Two CD Copies B t\4 IGJP HIGH COURT DATED:0910612025 i l i I .::r ::'= , , lL I )l lrt 14 o 2 E AUll 205 i',- t ',/ ORDER WP.No.14867 of 2025 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS