The court clarified the permissibility of multiple FIRs for similar offenses and emphasized the importance of efficient investigation by transferring cases to a single police station.

ORDER :

1. Since the issue involved in all the Criminal Petitions is one and the same, they are being taken up together for disposal by way of this common order.

2. Criminal Petition No. 5499 of 2020 is filed seeking to quash the proceedings in crime No. 303 of 2020 of Mudigubba police station, Anantapur district, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 467, 471, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and 206 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Criminal Petition No. 5465 of 2020 is filed seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No. 245 of 2020 of Peddapappur police station, Anantapur district, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 467, 471, 120B IPC.

Criminal Petition No. 5520 of 2020 is filed seeking to quash the proceedings in crime No. 706 of 2020 of Tadipatri Town police station, Anantapur district, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 467, 471, 120B IPC and 206 of the MV Act.

Criminal Petition No. 5524 of 2020 is filed seeking to quash the proceedings in crime No. 615 of 2020 of Tadipatri Rural police station, Anantapur district, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 467, 471, 120B IPC and 206 of the MV Act.

3. The allegations, in brief, are that six vehicles registered in Karnataka State were brought into Andhra Pradesh State without No Objection Certificate. The accusation as against the petitioners is that the registered numbers of the vehicles were changed through online of RTA portal as if they were registered in Andhra Pradesh State by mentioning Andhra Pradesh State Registration numbers. It is alleged that the engine and chassis numbers were also tampered by altering two or three digits and online applications were submitted for transfer of the said vehicles, and without verification of the original R.C. transfers were effected in the RTA Office, Anantapur. Later, on coming to know about it, the said vehicles were seized and cases were registered.

The petitioners are alleged to have evaded to pay life tax to the State of Andhra Pradesh by uploading fabricated documents into the data of existing Andhra Pradesh based vehicle illegally with the help of A.2 to A.5, and thereby A.1 to A.5 cheated the government officials as well as the Government of Andhra Pradesh.

In connection with that, 2nd respondent herein made complaints to different police stations in respect of different vehicles, and basing on the same, the aforesaid crimes came to be registered.

4. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that there cannot be any second First Information Report for each and every subsequent complaint. It is his contention that in the complaints pertaining to the same nature of offence and since the allegations in all the complaints are one and the same, one First Information Report is sufficient for conducting investigation and any complaints filed thereafter are liable to be quashed.

The learned counsel relied on a decision in Amitbhai Anil Chandra Shah vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another, (2013) 6 SCC 348 and T.T. Antony vs. State of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC 181.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for State opposed the same on the ground that every complaint that has been filed pertains to a different vehicle, and there are number of other vehicles wherein the accused cheated the Government of Andhra Pradesh in respect of the said vehicles, and there is no sameness in the complaints for the reason that the vehicle numbers are different from one complaint to the other and the chassis and engine numbers are also different in each and every complaint. He contends that for every vehicle, different complaint has to be filed.

6. In Amitbhai Anil Chandra Shah vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another (supra), it is held thus:

“58.2. The various provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure clearly show that an officer-in-charge of a police station has to commence investigation as