Learned counsel for the v. State of Andhra Pradesh arr'I Anotherl, wherein a Division Bench of this High Cou

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the FIR No. 1529 of 2O25 daled 1110712025 U/Sec 406 and 420 of IPC on the file of P.S Gachibolwi Cyberabad as against the petitioner/Accused No 2. l.A. NO: 2OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS 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 as against the petitioner/Accused No 2 in FIR No 1529 of 2025 dated 1110712025 on the file of PS Gachibowli Cyberabad district U/Sec 406 and 42O of IPC pending dispc sal of this Criminal petition in the interest of Justice. This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing I e Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments >f Sri VIKAS JOSHI representing M/S JOSHI AND CHILLARA LEGAL ASSOCIIL'ES LLP, Advooate for the Petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Addl. [) rblic Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1. CRIIUIINAL PETITION NO: 12806 OF 202s Between: Arukula Satish Kumar, Occ Private Employee S/o. Late Arukula Srinivas Goud, Age 54 years, R/o. 8-3-865, Yellareddy Guda, Ameerpet, Khairtabacl, Hyderabad ...PET|T|ON IR/ACCUSED No.2 AND

1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by the its Public Prosecutc,r High Court at Hyderabad (Through P.S. Gachibowli, Cyberabad) . . Respondent No.1

2. Avileni Jyothi Reddy, Occ Housewife R/o. H.No. 14117 , ,t ltinagulapally, Gandipet Mandal' Ranga Reddy ''tt'.'&Lrro*oENT No 2/coMpLArNANTS Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that ir the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the FIR No. 288 of 2024 dated on 29ll2l2li 4 on the file of P.S. Narsangi, Cyberabad U/sec. 406 a^d 420 of IPC as against ttrr petitioner/Accused No.2. l.A. NO:2OF2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that i,t the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,th: High Court may be pleased to STAY all further proceedings as against the petitior :r/Accused No. 2 in FIR No. 288 ot 2024 dated on 2910212024 on the file of P.S. l\ rrsangi, Cyberabad U/sec. 406 and 420 of lPC, pending disposal of this Criminal f, rtition. This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing 1l e Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments rf Sri VIKAS JOSHI Counsel representing M/S JOSHI AND CHILLARA LEGAL ASSOCIATES LLP, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Addl. public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER i:re.,ri THE HONOURABLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DE\ I EADA CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.1 28 05 and 12806 of io25 COMMON ORDER: These Criminal Petitions are filed by the petitiot er-accused No.2 in both the petitions seeking to quash the procee'r ings in FIR No.1 529 of 2025 on the file of Gachibowli Police Statiorr Cyberabad for the offences under Sections 420 and 406 IPC and Fl t No.288 of 2024 on the file of the Narsingi Police Station, Cyberil lad, for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 read with 34 lPC, r lspectively.

2. Since the parties in both the petitions are ( ne and the same, both the petitions are being disposed of by'tis common

3. Heard Sri Vikas Joshi, learned counsel repre ;enting M/s. Joshi and Chillara Legal Associates LLP, learned couns:l on record for the petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeram a la, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1-S tate in both the petitions.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submi led that two FlRs are registered based on a single incident and that r tultiple FlRs cannot be registered out of the same incident and that i amounts to 2 ETD,J Crl.P. No.12805 & 12gqi ot 2OZs double jeopardy and that the de facto complainant has lodged one FIR in 2024 and another in 2025 against the petitioner and 42 with the same set of ailegations. He further submitted that there is no truth in the allegations and further two FlRs cannot be maintained and hence, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner. 41 Learned Additional public prosecutor, has submitted that the FIR bearing No.1529 ot 2025 is based on the offence alleged to have occurred on 06.01.2021 wherein the petitioner herein-A2 and ,A1 approached the de facto complainant and told that they were going to sell a property and took advance amount from her for executing an agreement of sale, but failed to execute the agreement or repay the amount and the other FIR No.2gB of 2024 is based on a business transaction between the same parties with regard to investment in real estate business, but not with regard to agreement of sale and thus, both the transactions are different. He further subrnitted that though the amount alleged to have been paid is similar, there is no ground to quash the FlRs and hence, prayed to dismiss the same.

5. Perused the record.

6. The contention of the rearned counser for the petitioner is thqt two FlRs are registered based on the same transaction. The 3 ETD,J crl.P. No.1', lo5 & t2806 o{ 2025 allegations in FIR No.1 529 of 2025 are that the petitione 't A2 and his brother-A1 approached the de facto complainant and stat rd that they are going to sell their property, took advance of Rs 1 5 crore from her on promise of executing agreement of sale. After tztl ing money, they postponed the execution of agreement of sale art I whenever she asked them about the same, they threatened lt r with dire consequences. ln another case in FIR No.2BB cl 2024, the allegations are that the petitioner and his brother-A1 ap1: oached the de facto complainant and requested her to invest irr real estate business for which she would get profit and took ar amount of Rs.1.5 crore from her and after that whenever she ask:; {.l.- them about the money, they used to threaten her with dire ccr sequences. Hence, there are two incidents and two FlRs are regis:r red against the petitioner.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has elied upon Akbaruddin Owaisi v. State of Andhra Pradesh arr'I Anotherl, wherein a Division Bench of this High Court has held thut 'The accused was alleged to have rende:r speech at Nirmal and the de-facto complainant has so{ said video in Youtube on 22.12.2024 and thus has lol complaint at Wanaparthy. The alleged speech was m; him at Nirmal in Adilabad District and the Police of I Police Station had already registered a crime agai I n the led a je by t the ' 2023 (1) ALD (crt.)812 (TS) 4 ETO,J Crt.P. No.l2EOS & r2806 ot 2O2S petitioner. Subsequen y, several complaints were filed in several districts based on the same incident i.e., the speech delivered at Nirmal. ln the said set of facts, the Division Bench has held that the law recognizes a common trial or a common FIR being registered for one series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction as contemdated under Seclion 220 of Cr.p_C, the expression same transaction from its very nature is incapable of exact definition. The distinction between two FlR,s relating to the same incident and two FIR's relating to different incidents or occurrence of the same rncident should be carefully examined. The merits of each case must be considered to determine whether the subsequenfly registered FIR is relating to the same rncident or offence, or is based upon distinct and different facts and whether its scope of enquiry is entirely different or not. lt will not be appropriate for the Court to lay down one straight jacket formula uniformly applicable 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. Sta(e of Dethf . Thus, after discussion of entire case law prevailing on the subject, the Division Bench has held 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 complatnts are concerned arising out of the same incident should be discontinued and the statements of the complainants recorded tn 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 Sessrons Case. ', ' nrR tglg sc tzgr 5 ETD,J Crl-P. N( - |EOS t,12A06 ot 2025 B. ln the above cited decision there were multipl-. FlRs based on the same incident of speech that was deliverec at Nirmal However, many complaints were lodged at different pc ice stations and hence, it was ordered that first FIR has to be regislr red and the case can continue and the other subsequent compla nts can be treated as statements under Section 162 Cr.P.C. ln lhe present case, hvo FIRs are registered based on two different l'ansactions. The incidents are similar, but not the same incident oul >f which the two FlRs have arisen. Hence, the cited decision does r ot attract to the present case as the one case refers to agreement of sale and other refers to investment in a business. Thus, the above said decision cannot be applied to the case on hand I ln T.T. Antony v. State of Kerata & Ors.3, the Apex Court dealt with a case wherein it was held that: "ln respect of the same cognizable offence an<i ;ame occurrence two FlRs had been lodged and held that there can be no second FIR and no fresh investigation on r, cerpt of every subsequent information in respect of the iame cognizable offence or same occurrence giving rise to c re or more cognizable offences.' '10. ln Babu Bhai v. State of Gujarata, it was hel: that "The Court has to examine the facts and circumstances giving rise to both the FlRs and the t' st of ' (2oot ) 6 scc 1Bl ' 1zoro1 r z scc zsl 6 ETD,J cd.P. No.12605 & 12E06 0f 2025 sameness is to be applied to find out whether both the FlRs relate to the same incident in respect . of the same occurrence, or are in regard to the incidents which are two or more parts of the same transaction and that if the answer is affirmative, the second FIR is tiable to be quashed."

11. ln the present care only one similarity is that the amount invested is Rs.1.50 crores in both the cases, but the two transactions are for different purposes. Therefore, the second FIR cannot be quashed. lt is also borne out from the record that the demand drafts and cheques werqtalsb sent by the petitioner to the de facto complainant on WhatsApp. The investigation is in progress. The truth is yet to be unraveled. lt further discloses that notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS has already been issued to the petitioner and that the petitioner has also submitted his reply to the said notice. Hence, it is deemed appropriate to direct the police to consider the reply given by the petitioner and complete the investigation.

12. Accordingly, the Criminal Petitions are disposed of directing the police concernecl to consider the explanation submitted by the petitioner to the notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS and complete the investigation in accordance with law and also by following the guidelines formulated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihars scrupulously and the petitioner is 5 1zotr1 a scc ezl 7 ETO,J C.l.P- N( . 2A05 & 12806 of 2025 also directed to co-operate with the lnvestigating Of icer and to furnish the requisite information and documents as 'and when required by him Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, shall starrr closed. //TRUE COPY// L. VIJAYA LAXMI NT REGISTRAR .__---*) Sc T ( ) TION OFFICER To, Cyberabad.

1. The X Addl. Metropolitan Magistraet Kukatpally at pra$a tth Nagar, ! ]fe {lt]}O_Ul Metropolitan Magistrate Cyberabad at Rajr-. rdranagar. 3. The SHO, PS Narsingi, Cyberabad. 4. The SHO, PS Gachibowli, Cyberabad. 5. One CC to M/s JOSHI AND'CH|LLARA LEGAL ASSOC r ,TES LLp Advocate 6. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High court for the stale of Telangana, at 7. Two CD Copies GE/pr Hyderabad [OUT] loPUcl HIGH COURT DATED:31/10/2025 COMMON ORDER CRLP.No.12805 of 2025 AND CRLP.No.12806 ot 2025 o i) t * 1HE li 3 0 .i,' l; l:i 'z t DrsPosrNG oF THE CRLP NO.12805 t2025 WTTHOUT CO{i 'S And OISPOSING OF THE CRLP NO.12806 12025 WITHOUT CO{; 'S