The High Court · 2025

1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, Hyderabad.

2. Kum. Rachakonda Likitha, D/o. Roja Kumari, R/o Plot No.103, Srinivasa Apartments, Gokul Nagar, Tarnaka, Hyderabad. .. . Respondents/De-facto Complainant Petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, tfe High Court may be pleased to Quash the F.l.R. in Crime No. 369t2025 dated 22lOBt2O2S registered under Sections 79, 351(2), 352 r/w 3(5) BNS. and 66-D of the lT Act, 2008 by P.S. OU City, Hyderabad. l.A. NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. praying that in the circumstanies stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including the arrest of the petitioners, pursuant to registration of Crime in F.l.R. No. 36912025, dated 22tOBl2O25 on the file of P.S. O.U. City, Hyderabad, pending disposal of the Criminal Petition. ',,,.: ir&*iii&*iis**. -, 7 This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri P Pratap, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER l, THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.14145 OF 2025 ER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in Crime No.369 of 2025 of O.U. City Police Station, Hyderabad, registered for the offences under Sections 79, 351(2) and 352 read with 3(5) BNS and 66D of lnformation Technology Act, 2008.

2. Heard Sri P. Pratap, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No. 1 -State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that respondent No.2-de facfo complainant has filed second F.l.R. basing on similar set of allegations, which is not tenable in the eye of law. .Two F.l.Rs. cannot be lodged with regard to the same incident and same offences against the petitioners. He further submitted that on the earlier complaint, charge sheet has already been filed and the same was taken cognizance by the learned lV Additional Chief Judicial tt/lagistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, and numbered as C.C.No.64O3 of 2025, and in the said case, the mobile phone of petitioner No.1 was seized. Since there is no 2 L t'l).J (il.l'.No.l4 145 of 2025 material in the earlier case, the present F.l.R. is being lodged with the same set of allegations. ln support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala and othersl and in light of the said judgment, he prayed to quash the proceedings in the present crime against the petitioners herein.

4. Learned Addltional Public Prosecutor submitted that the present case is totally on a different cause of action. ln the present crime, it is alleged that the petitioners herein are threatening lhe de facto complainant to withdraw the earlier case filed by her against the petitioners herein. Thus, the case cropped up from a different incident. Hence, the proceedings in the present crime cannot be quashed.

5. Perused the record.

6. ln the first complaint, it is alleged that the petitioners tried to outrage the modesty of the de facto complainant and also caused hurt and threatened her. lt is alleged that petitioner No.'1 , who was her classmate, developed acquaintance with her, followed her and proposed love, on which she denied, but he still insisted ' (ZOOI) C Suprcnrc Courl Cascs l8l 3 E-I'D.J Crl.P.No. 14145 of 2025 her and started beating her with hands while on her way from college to her house and used to trouble her a lot. Further, there are certain incidents reported, in which she was targeted and beat by petitioner No.1 in public and on one day, when petitioner No.1 was harassing the de facto complainant by asking her to love him and has beaten her, the father of petitioner No.1 i.e., petitioner No.2 came there, hugged her, kissed her and brought her to Tarnaka on his bike and offered coconut water and when she refused, he scolded her by using abusive language. Petitioner No.1 also threatened that he would pour acid on her mother and tried to touch her private parts at metro station road. lt is with the said set of allegations, the earlier complaint was lodged on

10.04.2025 vide F.l.R.No.178 of 2025 of O.U. City Police Station, Hyderabad $

7. The present F.l.R. is registered based on the complaint that petitioner No.1 has created an lnstagram lD and has posted vulgar messages and nude photos of the de facto complainant, whereby third parties have started calling her and her family members. lt is further alleged that the mother of petitioner No.1 called the de facto complainant and asked her to withdraw the case and ab-used her. It is further alleged that petitioner No" 1 4 t, t D..t Crl.P.No. l4 145 ol'2025 posted individual messages to her college friends stating that police have caught her at Kukatpally metro station, while she was doing prcstitution. Thus, it is made out that the two complaints are based on two different incidents. The cause of action is entirely different in both the cases. Though the parties are same, since the alleged incidents in both the complaints happen to be different, it cannot be said that there are multiple F.l Rs. based on similar set of allegations. 8 ln T.T. Antony's case (supra), the Honourable Apex Court dealt with a case, wherein it was held that: "ln 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 respecl of the same cognizable offence or same occurrence giving rise to one or more cognizable offences.,,

9. ln Babu Bhai v. State of Gujarat2 , it was held that: "The Court has to examine the facts and circumstances giving rise to both the FlRs and the test of 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 ? (2010) 12 scc 254 5 u )-J Crl.l'.No. l4 145 of 2025 the same transaction and that if the answer is affirmative, the second FIR is liable to be quashed."

10. ln the present case, there are different set of allegations based on different incidents. The cases did not crop up out of the same incident. Though the nature of offences alleged is same, the incidents are different. Hence, the proceedings in the present crime cannot be quashed. Thus, the Criminal Petition lacks merit.

11. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPYII SD/. A.V.S.PRASAD 'DEFurY nects G SECTION OFFICER To,

5. ,' The lVAdditional Chief Judicial Magistrate, at Hyderabad. The Station House Officer, O.U. City police Station, Hyderabad. One CC to Sri. P Pratap Advocate [OPUC] Two ccs to Public Prosecutor, High court for the state of rerangana. [oUT] Two CD Copies. YJR /PSL HIGH COURT DATED:2011112025 =i CRLP.No.14145 ot 2025 R l ttF. s', o( o * ,, iloll aut pArc r'riO * I t TIFilIF{I :l F THE CRIMINAL PETITION