High Court · 2025

12. Sri Tharun Kumar Ada, S/o (Not Known), Aged Major, Occ. Not Known, Rl/o Utnoor, Adilabad District.

13.Sri Sai Krishna Kursenga, S/o (Not Known), Aged Major, Occ. Not Known, Rl/o Utnoor, Adilabad District.

14.Sri Vathan Gedam, S/o (Not Known), Aged Major, Occ. Not Known, R/o Utnoor, Adilabad District.

15.Sri Azmera Jayachandra, S/o (Not Known), Aged Major, Occ. Not Known, R/o Utnoor, Adilabad District.

16.Sri Madavi Arun Kumar, S/o Rajesh, Aged Major, Occ. Student, R/o Mavala Village, Adilabad District. .17.Sri Kanaka Naresh, S/o (Not Known), Aged Malor, Occ. Not Known, Rt/o Mavala, Adilabad District. 'lB.Sri Gedam Vishal, S/o (Not Known), Aged Major, Occ. Not Known, Fl/o Mavala, Adilabad District.

19.Sri N. Vinayak, S/o (Not Known), Aged Major, Occ. Not Known, FUo Mavala, Adilabad District.

20.Smt. Kannak Apama, W/o (Not Known), Aged Major, Occ. Not Known, F/o Mavala, Adilabad District.

21.Smt. Kulasange Krishnaveni, W/o (Not Known), Aged Major, Occ. Not Known, Rl/o Mavala, Adilabad District.

22.Sri Rajender Rangula, S/o (Not Known), Aged Major, Occ. Not Known, Fi./o Adilabad Town, Adilabad District.

23.Sri Manideep Dharmagadda, S/o (Not Known), Aged Major, Occ. Not Known, R/o Adilabad Town, Adilabad District.

24.Sri Amul Sidam, S/o (Not Known), Aged Maior, Occ. Not Known, Rl/o Jainath Village, Adilabad District

25.Sri Kova Arun, Sio (Not Known), Aged Major, Occ. Not Known, R/o Jainath Village, Adilabad District. 26-Sri Madavi Sandeep, S/o (Not Known), Aged Major, Occ. Not Known, Rt/o Jainath Village, Adilabad District.

27.Sri Raisiram Bheem Rao, S/o (Not Known), Aged Major, Occ- Not Known, R/o lndervelli Village, Adilabad District.

28.Sri Mesram Chandrashekar, S/o (Not Known), Aged Malor, Occ. Not Known, R/o lndervelli Village, Adilabad District.

29.Sri Thungapindi Uday Raj, S/o (Not Known), Aged Major, Occ. Not Known, Rl/o lndervelli Village, Adilabad District.

30.Sri Arjun Jadhav, S/o Sakaram, Aged Major, Occ. Farmer, Rl/o Nagalkonda Village, Namoor Mandal, Adilabad District. 31-Sri Purushotham Mesram, S/o Mukundrao, Aged Major, Occ. Photographer, Rl/o Tadihathnoor Village, Namoor Mandal, Adilabad District- ...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 particulady one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS, declaring the action of the respondents in registering multiple FlRs vide FIR No. 18O of 2025, FIR Nos. 213,214,215 and 222 of 2025 (on the file of P.S. Utnoor). FIR Nos. 354,411,412,419,426 and 427 of 2025 (on the file of P.S. Mavala). FIR Nos. 501 and 506 of 2l),15 (on the file of P.S. Adilabad-l Town). FIR Nos. 207, 208 and 2O9 of 2025 (orr lhe file of P.S. Jainath). FtR Nos. 126, 127 and 128 of 2025 (on the file of P.S. r dervelli). and FIR Nos. 80 and 81 of 2025 (on the file of P.S. Namoor| all pertaini rg to the same incident, as iHegal, arbitrary, contrary to the law laid down by th-. Hon'ble Apex.Court in Arfrish Devgan v. Union of lndia, (2021)'l SCC 1 and R;r,lhey Shyam v. State of Haryana (W.P. (Crl ) No. 75 of 20201 and violative of Arti,; r-.s 14,20 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently quash the FlRs re r3istered subsequent to FIR No. 180 of 2025 on the file of P.S. Utnoor so far it rel : es to the petitioner and direct that any further investigation into the said allegatic r s be conducted only in respect of one principal FlR, namely FIR No. 180 of ;!025 on the file of P.S. Utnoor, while treating the subsequent complaints, if any rnly as statements u/s ,161 Cr.P.C. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the ircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High C r rrt may be pleased to grant stay all further proceedings in FIR Nos. 213,214, il 5 and 222 of 2O25 (on the file of P.S. Utnoor). FIR Nos. 354,411, 4'12, 419, 426 i nd 427 of 2025 (on the file of P.S. Mavala) FIR Nos. 501 and 506 of 2025 (on th r file of P.S. Adilabad-l Town). FIR Nos. 207, 208 and 2O9 ot 2O25 (on the file o1 ).S. Jainath). FIR Nos. 126, 127 and 128 of 2025 (on the file of P.S. lndervelli). a rd FIR Nos. 80 and 81 ot 2025 (on the file of P.S. Narnoor), in respect of the pet t ,rner with a direction to the respondents not to take any coercive steps a!; inst the petitioner in connection with the said FlRs or any further complaints r ith regard to the same set of incident and allegations- Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI ANUGANTI PRANEETH Counsel for the Respondents: SRIDHAR BHUVANAGIRI AGP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA WRIT PETITION No.26550 of 2025 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 Constitution of lndia with the prayer that multiple FlRs lodged against the petitioner, subsequent to the first FIR No.180 of 2025, be quashed and treat the subsequent complaints as statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C

2. Heard Sri Anuganti Praneeth, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sridhar Bhuvanagiri, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, appearing for respondents Nos.1 to 10

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the multiple FlRs are registered against the petitioner herein and it amounts to double jeopardy and it is settled law that not more than one complaint be registered against a person when the offence arises out of the same incident and that continuation of the other FlRs against the petitioner herein would be an abuse of process of law. He further submitted that the de facto complainants alleged that they have paid amounts to the petitioner herein as the petitioner alleged to have promised them to provide jobs. When there are ') subsequent transactions on the same allegations, thr: r they have to be clubbed together, but there could be no seconc elR regarding that offence. Therefore, all the complaints in the present case portray the same contents and hence, the principle l;riJ down by the Apex Court in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala ano ,othersr gets attracted to the present case. Therefore, he prayed o declare the action of the respondents-police in registering nultrple FlRs consequent to registering the FIR No.185 of 20ZS on he file of p.S. Utnoor, as arbitrary.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader f rr Home has submitted that contents of all the complaints point out the allegation that the petitioner used to collect the amounts frort the innocent people, but the transactions are different and the se: cf allegations are also different. He pointed out two different transa: lions of which two FlRs are registered to make out the difference. lr a complaint dated 14.08.2025, the allegation is that the de facto cc r tplainant was running a Plywood and Glass Centre and that the retitioner has ordered for plywood material from his shop as he reqrr res the same for the furniture in his bank and that he has purchase rr r the material worth Rs.1,00,000i-, but paid Rs.30,000/- as advanc: and has not ' (2ool ) 6 scc 18.t J paid the remaining amount. rt is further areged that he used to say that he has good political contacts and he would provide jobs to several other persons. Based on this compraint, FrR No.222 of 2o2s was registered on the file of Utnoor police Station, Adilabad, and the complainant herein is Jayachandra Azmera. He further submitted that in another case i.e. FIR No 4.l9 of 2025 dated 13.0g.2025, the allegations against the petitioner are that the petitioner approached the de facto comprainant sri S. Vinayak and stated that he is an NRr and he is going to operate digital banks in Adilabad District and as he has foreign currency and as it would take some time to exchange the same, requested the de facto complainant to arrange Rs.4.00 lakhs towards investment for establishing the said bank and also promised that after the bank starts functioning, he would return his money. Therefore, the de facto complainant has transferred the amounts through phonepe. The detairs of the phonepe as to the phone number and the amounts paid are also mentioned in the said complaint.

5. Similarly, there are different sets of complaints and the FlRs, wherein the ailegations are different and the transactions are different under which several victims have invested with the petitioner and are alleged to be deceived. He, therefore, submitted 4 ETO,J that since the allegations are different and the < rimes were registeredbasedondifferentcomplaintswhichreferre:rrtodifferent transactions, the principle laid down by the Apex I ourt in T T Anthony case is not applicable and that the matter is squarely covered by the decision of the Apex Court in State o' lajasthan v Surender Singh Rathod. He, therefore, prayed tc dismiss the petition 6 Perused the record T.Therecorddisclosesthatseveralcomplairrlsarelodged against the petitioner by different victims and thev are pending investigation. A perusal of said complaints disclr> ''es that the allegations do not arise out of the same transactiorr but they are similar in nature and that the petitioner used to lur': the innocent people by promising them in different ways ln some {:ases' he has promised to provide jobs in the bank, in some <;irses' he has requested for investment in the bank and in some t ases' he has obtained material required for establishment of the bar < and has not paid the amount for the same. A perusal of the courtler filed by the respondent No.4 reveals that the petitioner is an z ':cused in 10 crimes in several police stations of Adilabad District Though the learned counsei for the petitionei- contended that egistration of 5 ETD.J multiple FlRs against the same individual with regard to similar transactions is not maintainable and relied upon T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala & Others (1 supra). The Apex Court dealt with the said case wherein in respect of the same cognizable offence and same occurrence, two FlRs had been lodged and held that there can be no second FIR and no fresh investigation on receipt of every subsequent information in respect of the same cognizabre offence or same occurrence giving rise to one or more cognizable offences.

8. ln the said case, the complaints were registered based only on a single incident, but in the present case they pertain to different incidents, different set of transactions based on which several victims have rodged several compraints. Hence, the facts in the cited decision are different from the present one, and the principle laid down also does not get attracted. Hence, the same is not applicable.

9. Learned Government pleader for Home has relied upon the case law in State of Rajasthan v. Surendra Singh Rathore2, wherein three persons namely, Vipin parihar and his business Partner, Deven Shah and one Satyanaran Saini lodged a complaint with the Anti-Corruption Bureau to the effect that the respondent, '2o2s tNsc 248 6 EfD,J who is employed as the Chief Executive Officer cum Pnrject Director of Bio-fuel Authority, Government of Rajasthan, allegeJ y demanded a bribe @ Rs.2/- per litre for the sale of bio-diesel i'e' t( '; 15 00 lakhs permonthwithafurtherRs.5.00lakhsforrenewaloflhelicenceof the complainant. The said FIR'was numbered as 123 <'f 2022 under Section 7 and 7A of the P.C. Act. This demand took place on 04.04.2022. A second FIR was lodged on 140t.'>-022 for the incidents which took place between 30.09.2021 anl 1204'2022 wherein one Shyam Prakash, Constable of ACB brou3rt information to the notice of DSP that amongst other persons, tl'e respondent thereinwasindulgingintakingbribestograntlicencesilorunbio.fuel pumps. Thus, the respondent therein aggrieved by tht. registration of the second FIR preferred a petition under Section 4B2 lr'P C before the High Court of Rajasthan. The High Court has quashed the second FIR while exercising powers under Secticr 482 Cr'P'C' When the matter reached the Apex Court, it has obser red that: "9. From the above conspectus of judgments, inter tl '2, lhe following principles emerge regarding the permissii'i ity of the registration of a second FIR:

9.1 When the second FIR is counter-conll)laint or presents a rival version of a set of facts, in re i'ence to which an earlier FIR already stands registered 7

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

9.3 When investigation and/or other avenues reveal the earlier FIR or set of facts to be part of a larger conspiracy. 9,4 When investigation and/or persons related to the incident bring to the light hitherto unknown facts or circumstances.

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

10. As recorded supra, the High Court found that the two FlRs were indeed in regard to the same offence and. therefore, not maintainable, however, in our view the scope of the two FlRs, as already referred to in para 3 supra, are distinct. The FIR prior in point of time refers to a particular incident and the action taken therein is Iimited. The second FIR pertains to the larger issue of widespread corruptton in the concerned department and, therefore, is much larger in its scope than the previous FIR

11. Quashing of the FIR would nip the investrgation into such corruption, in the bud. The same would be against the interest of society.

12. ln the attending facts and circumstances, the judgment referred to in para 1, impugned herein is set aside and FIR No.1 31 of 2022 stands reslored on the fite of the Anti_ Corruption Bureau, Jaipur.,, 1 ) '10. ln the present case also it is discussed above that the complaints crop up from different incidents and different transactions ) ) 8 EfO,J wherein the alleged victims were lured and the pe titioner has allegedly extracted the amounts and utilized their serli:es and had deceived them. Thus, in the light of the above citec decision in StateofRajasthanv.SurendraSinghRathore(2s'rpra)andin view of the above held disc 'ssion, the petition lacl s merit and hence, the same cannot be entertained' 1'1 . Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed' ir o order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, shall sta.rd closed //TRUE COPY// Sd/-AHNll ;D ABDULLA KHAN ASSI;TANT'EGISTRAR /a- SECTIdN OFFICER To, '1 . One CC to SRI ANUGANTI PRANEETH, Advocate. [OF ( ]Cl 2. Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the State o1 l-elangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] I I

3. Two CD Copies. BSK I PMK HIGH COURT DATED:3111012025 I ORDER WP.No.26550 of 2025 , I o oI i ) I (. t ( TllE s t4 7 NliU rq [' 61 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 6 \ \ I \\ \