Heard the submissions of Sri T v. Ramaner Rao

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to Stay all further proceedings in FIR No.l292 ot 2025 of P.S. Cyber Crimes, CCS, DD, Hyderabad, in so far as the petitioner/A1 is concerned pending disposal of the above Criminal Petition in the interests of justice and in the circumstances of the case. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri T.V. Ramana Rao, Advocale for the Petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Ptrblic Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1, and none appears for Respondent No. 2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DE] 1 EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.1 1027 0F 20:2;' ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner.- accused No.1 seeking to quash the proceedings in FIR No.1292 ol t_)25 on thefile of P.S. Cyberabad, Hyderabad, registered for the c fences under Sections 66-C, 66-E ITA-2000-2008 and Section 31t (4), 338 read with 3 (5) of The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (1< r sho( "BNS, 2023") and Section 63, 65 of the CA Act.

2. Heard the submissions of Sri T. V. Ramaner Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veer;r nalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 - St,l e.

3. The learned petitioner counsel has submitted 1 rat two FIR's are being lodged against the same incident which is n: maintainable in the eye of law and that it amounts to double jeoparc 7 and that the same set of facts are alleged in both the complaints a rd the parties are also the same. He further submitted that it is all :ged that the petitioner has pirated the video of Kubera Film and thar the petitioner has not committed any such offence as alleged by the de-facto complainant. He further submitted that registration cf two FIR's 2 ETD,J Crlp.No. I t027_2025 based on ttre same set of facts is not maintainable. l_lence, prayed to quash the second FlR. 4' The rearned Additionar pubric prosecutor has submitted that one complaint is lodged against the alleged offence of pirating the CD of Kubera Film and the second compliant is lodged alleging the piracy of HIT Movie. Therefore, the test of sameness cannot be applied here and whenever, two FIR's are booked based on the same transaction, then it can be said that two FlR,s are not maintainable, but here, the compraints are based on two different incidents. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner counsel is not tenable. He therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Perused the record

6. The first FtR No..1042 ot 2025, dated 03.06.2025 for the offence under Section 66-C, 66€ ITA_2OOO_2OOB, 318(4) read with Section 3(5) BNS and Section 63,65 of CA for alleging the piracy of Hit Movie. The second FlR.No.1292 of ?02S dabd 1g.07_2025 is registered alleging video piracy of Kubera Firm. Therefiore, the said two complaints are based on tvvo different incidents and two FlR,s are registered out of the said incidents. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Akbaruddin Owaisi Vs. Sfafe of Andhra i 1 I I I t. i L l 3 ETD,J Crlp.No.l 1027_2025 Pradesh and Anotherl ; wherein a Division Benc r of this High Court has held that, the accused was alleged to l'z ve rendered a speech at Nirmal and the de-facto complainant has seen the said video in Youtube on 22.12.2024 and thus has todgec a complaint at Wanaparthy. The alleged speech was made by hi n at Nirmal in Adilabad District and the Police of Nirmal Police Statl >n had already registered a crime against the petitioner. Subserl rently, several complaints were filed in several districts based on tht same incident i.e., the speech delivered at Nirmal. ln the said s;t t of facts, the Division Bench has held that the law recognizes a c,l nmon trial or a common FIR being registered for one series of ac:t so connected together as to form the same transaction as conl( mplated under Section 220 of Cr.P.C, the expression same trart action from its very nature is incapable of exact definition. The disli rction between two FIR's relating to the same incident and two l: R's relating to different incidents or occurrence of the same inc t ent should be carefully examined. The merits of each case must tn ) considered to determine whether the subsequently registered FIR i relating to the same incident or offence, or is based upon distirt ;t and different facts and whether its scope of enquiry is entirely di1 'erent or not. lt will not be appropriate for the Court to lay down orr straight jacket Qox (l) ALD (crr.)8 t2 (rs) I 4 €TD,J Crlp.No.l 1027_2{25 formula uniformly app,licable to all the cases. The test to determine whether the two FIR's can be permitted is whether the two incidents are identical or not as held in Ramlal Narang Vs. Stafe of Delhiz . Thus, after discussion of entire case law prevailing on the subject in the case of Akbaruddin Owaisi (supra), the Division gench has treld that the FIR lodged in Crime No.01 of 2013 before the Nirmal police Station in which the charge sheet has been filed is the first FIR and in so far the other complaints are concerned arising out of the same incident should be discontinued and the statements of tre complainants recorded in those cases may be forwarded to the said Court wherein the first case registered on the first FIR is pending and that the trial Court may consider treating the said complainants as witnesses in the proceedings of the said Sessions Case. ln the present case there are two incidents and two FlR,s registered against the petitioner. The incidents are similar, but not the same incident out of which the two FIR's have arisen. Thus tte above decision is not applicable to the case on hand.

7. ln T.T. Antony Vs. State of Kenla & Ors.3, the Apex Court dealt with a case wherein, in respect of the same cognizable ofbnoe and same occurrence two FlRs had been lodged and held that there 'nln t9z9 sc tzg r .* ?oo t; o scc tsr 5 ETD,J Crlp.No.I 1027_2025 can be no se@nd FIR and no fresh investigation or receipt of every subsequent information in respect of the same cogn zable offence or same occurrence giving rise to one or more cogniz€rl le offences.

8. ln Babu Bhai v. State of Gujara(, it was hr: d that the Court has to examine the facts and ciroumstances givinr; rise to both the FlRs and the test of sameness is to be applied to ind out whether both the FlRs relate to the same incident in respr <;t of the same occurrence or are in regard to the incidents which rre two or more parts of the same transaction and that if the ansvr :r is affirmative, the second FIR is liable to be quashed.

9. The above cited decisions also are not appli,) tble to the case on hand as the two complaints are distinct depr: rrJing upon two incidents and hence, the FIR cannot be quashe<l Therefore, the petition lacks merits.

10. ln the result, the Criminal petition is dismisse<l No costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shr ll stand closed. t'r (7oro) tt-s u- ?-s \t To, //TRUE COPY// Sd/. 1( BHAVANI SWAMY ASSIS TANT REGISTRAR .,- SEC' ION OFFICER '1. The Xll Additional Chief-Judicial Magistrate at Hyderabad 2. The Station House Officer, CVO".- Ciir".- potice Stat t r, Hyderabad 3. One CC to Sri T.V. Ramana Rao , Advocate tOpUCl o to Public Prosecuror, Hid C;;'il, rhe statr of retangana Hyderabad District. 3,:r;"" 5. Two CD Copies PAC. BJLB/karn It' HIGH COURT DATED:11/09/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.11027 ot 202s CRIMINAL PETITION lS DISM|SSED No COSTS U f %t o I F[8 2tl26 t-z * o,_- )orr-r.ui1,p t- s\ol* j I I ! i I I I I I i I I , I I i I 1 i j ! j