1. Does Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter called “Cr.P.C”) permit registration of two separate complaints in two different police stations for offences arising out of one occurrence/event/incident? If so, does the Cr.P.C. permit parallel and simultaneous investigations being conducted thereinto? If, on the other hand, the Cr.P.C. does not permit two parallel investigations by police officers of two different police stations, for offences arising out of the same incident, can the Station House Officer or the Magistrate transfer the complaint registered in one police station to the other for investigation even if both the police stations have territorial jurisdiction to register and investigate the said complaint? In such a case, should the transferred complaint be treated as a Section 162 Cr.P.C. statement by the Station House Officer of the police station to which it is transferred? These are some of the questions which arise for consideration in this Writ Petition.

2. The factual matrix, in which these questions arise, needs to be noted first. The petitioner delivered a speech on 08.12.2012 at Nizamabad which resulted in a public outcry. Crime No.1 of 2013, for offences under Sections 153, 153A and 295A IPC, was registered on 02.01.2013 by the third respondent at Nizamabad. In the meanwhile the ninth respondent filed a private complaint before the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad which was referred, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, to the fifth respondent who registered the said complaint as Crime No.5 of 2013 for the offence under Section 153A IPC, and issued a notice to the petitioner under Section 41-A Cr.P.C asking him to appear on 10.01.2013. For the same or a similar speech delivered by him, several other complaints also appear to have been lodged against the petitioner in different Courts/police stations.

3. Another speech delivered by the petitioner on 22.12.2012, at Nirmal in Adilabad District, resulted in Crime No.1 of 2013 being registered by the fourth respondent on 02.01.2013 for offences under Sections 153A and 121 IPC. While the relief sought for in this Writ Petition includes a direction to the police officers not to register any further FIR against the petitioner in relation to his speech at Nizamabad and Nirmal on 08.12.2012 and 22.12.2012 respectively, Sri S. Niranjan Reddy, Learned Counsel, would submit that the petitioner does not seek an adjudication, in this writ petition, on the validity of the several complaints registered in respect of his speech at Nirmal, and it would suffice if the Court were to examine the legality or otherwise of the second FIR registered as Crime No.5 of 2013, in relation to the petitioner’s speech at Nizamabad, for which a complaint had already been registered by the third respondent as Crime No.1 of 2013, even if the 5th respondent is presumed to have territorial jurisdiction to register the said FIR. The submission of the Learned Counsel, in short, is that, since the complaint was already registered as Crime No.1 of 2013 by the third respondent, a second FIR in respect of the very same incident (speech) is barred; and, consequently, while investigation into Crime No.1 of 2013 can be continued by the third respondent, Crime No.5 of 2013 before the fifth respondent must be quashed.

4. The petitioner, a member of a registered state political party, is also a Member of the A.P. State Legislative Assembly. He spoke at an assembled gathering at Nizamabad on 08.12.2012 which he claims had touched upon various social and political aspects, including those which concerned the minority community. In his writ affidavit the petitioner states that he does not bear any ill-will, grudge or negative emotion or sentiment against any community and believes that all citizens, irrespective of their faith or religion, must be treated as equals; on 28.12.2012 an article was published by a media house selectively highlighting parts of his