The High Court · 2025

2. Mr.Kalam Ramu, S/o.Ramchandraiah, aged 40 years, Occ.HG 363 of p.S. Balanagar, Mahabubnagar District. ...RespondenUDefacto Complainant 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 proceedings in C.C.No.339 of 2025 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Jadcherla, Mahabubnagar District. t.A. NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 58 of BNSS praying that in the c rcumstances stated in the Memorandum of G:"ounds of Criminal Petition, the {igh Court may be pleased lt is just and necessary that this Court may be pleas r d to stay all further proceedings in C.C.No.339 of 2025 on the file of Judicial [\,4a g strate of First Class at Jadcherla, Mahabubnagar District. This Petition comrng on for hearing, upon perusing t re Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the argun r nts of Sri K Rama Subba Rao, Advocate for the Petitioners and the Sri Jither ier Ro Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent ilo. 1 and of None appeared for the Respondent No. 2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.14251 OF 2025 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 4 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.339 ol 2025 on the file of learned Judicial tvlagistrate of First Class, Jadcherla, registered for the offences under Sections 132, 115(2) and 352 read with 3(5) of BNS 2 Heard Sri K. Rama Subba Rao, 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 the de facfo complainanl is not the victim and that bald and omnibus allegations are levelled against the petitioners herein. He further submitted that the present complaint is primarily lodged on political rivalry, developing grudge against the petitioners herein. He, therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings in the present C.C against the petitioners herein.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that when the local MLA was going on Jai Bapu, Jai Bheem and Jai ETD.] ('r1.1' No 11251 ot 2025 Samvidhan Programme through the Villages, the retitioners have attacked his procession and entered into an argunrr nt with him and when the de facto complainant-Home Guard rnd LW.2-Sub- lnspector of Police went there to pacify the matter petitioner No.1 beat LW.2 and abused him in filthy language. He f rrther submitted that since prima facie case is made out against the petitioners, the proceedings in the present C.C. cannot be quar; red against the petitioners herein.

5. Perused the record

6. The incident occurred on 03.04.2025. Bal;r,d en the same incident, a complaint was filed by the driver of thr: IVILA, based on which Crime No 103 of 2025 of Balanagar Police Station, Mahabubnagar District, was registered with ttt( | same set of allegations. The present complaint is filed by tlr : Home Guard, who was attending the duties under the MLA, givi g rise to Crime No.104 of 2025 of Balanagar Police Station. Tt us, the second F.l.R. based on the same set of allegations cannc I be maintained by virtue of the decisions of the Honourable Apex Court in a T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala and othersl and Babu Bhai v. -) E1'D.J Crl.P.No.l425l ot2025 State of Gujarat2.

7. ln T.T. Antony's case (supra 1), 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 respect of the same cognizable offence or same occurrence giving rise to one or more cognizable offences. "

8. ln Babu Bhai's case(supra 2) , the Honourable Supreme Court 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 the same transaction and that if the answer is affirmative, the second FIR is liable to be quashed."

9. ln the present case, since both the complaints arise out of the same incident with the same set of allegations, registration of second F.l.R. is not maintainable. Hence, the proceedings under ( I ' (2001) 6 scc 191 ' 1zoto1 tz scc 254 4 ETD.,I C'rl I' \o. 1425 I o12025 the second F.l.R. deserve to be quashed. Howe'r:r, in the above cited decisions, it was held that in case two F.l.Fs. are registered based on the same incident, the statements of v itnesses in the second case should be treated as statements unr er Section 162 Cr.P.C. in the first case

10. Therefore, the proceedings in C.C.No.339 cf 2025 on the file of learned Judicial l\4agistrate of First Class, Jadcr:rla are hereby quashed against the petitioners herein. The statements of witnesses in the present C.C. are to be referred ir C C.No.340 of 2025 on the file of learned Judicial fi/agistratr: of First Class, Jadcherla, as the statements under Section 162 C' P.C

11. Subject to the above, the Criminal Petition is r rllowed Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shal ;tand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/- A. PRATHIMA t) :PUry REGISTRAR G SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Judicial First Class Magistrate at Jadcherla. 2 The station House officer, Batanagar porice Station, Mar- abubnagar District_ 3 Two ccs to the pubric prosecutor, State of rerangana, r-r ;h coui Buirdinjs, 4. One CC to Sri K Rama Subba Rao, Advocate [OPUC ] 5 Two CD Copies at Hyderabad (OUT) DL/Sa Y HIGH COURT DATED:2511112025 ORDER CRLP.No.14251 ot 2025 ,.it"' i,-l t .' ;.. '..'1. '+--. ;\ ii .'\ l3 L:,i. 2llfr / / ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION