IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K. LAKSHMAN, J.
Smt. K. Mathamma W/o. Naveen Kumar Chintapandu - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary for Home, Hyderabad & Others - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 22037 of 2021
Decided On : 04-10-2021
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 387, 306, 511 and 504 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section - 41A, 162 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles - 19 (1) (a) and 21, 32 – Punishment for criminal intimidation – Attempt to suicide - Freedom of speech and expression - Right to life and personal liberty - Writ petition is filed to declare action of respondents in registering multiple FIRs arising out of same cause of action against husband of petitioner as illegal; for a consequential direction to respondent police to refrain from registering further FIRs against husband of petitioner; for treating any existing or future FIRs or complaints made by persons in relation to actions forming part of investigation under one FIR as additional witness statements – Held, In view of peculiar facts and circumstances of case, considering fact that several cases have been registered against husband of petitioner at various police stations of Telangana State, Court is of considered view to issue following directions to respondent police, more particularly to respondent No.2, Director General of Police, Telangana State – (a) Respondent Police are directed to refrain from registration of multiple crimes on same allegations and they shall consider truth of sameness;(b) If there is more than one crime pending against the husband of petitioner in respect of the very same allegation arising out of same cause of action, respondent police shall conduct investigation in one crime and treat other crimes as statements under Section - 162 of the Cr.P.C.; (c) Respondent No.2 shall personally supervise the investigation in respect of the crimes pending against the husband of the petitioner; (d) He is directed to furnish the information either to the petitioner or her husband with regard to pendency of cases against him and issuance / pendency of PT warrants against him and also issuance of Bailable/Non-Bailable Warrants within one (01) week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order under proper acknowledgment; (e) He has to consider the allegations made against the husband of the petitioner in all thirty five (35) crimes pending against him, and if there is any registration of multiple crimes in respect of the same allegations arising out of the same cause of action, he shall give necessary instructions to the concerned Investigating Officers to close such crimes, treat the same as statements under Section - 162 of the Cr.P.C - Writ petition dismissed.
ORDER :
Heard Mr. Kalyan Dilip Sunkara, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. T. Srikanth Reddy, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of the respondents.
2. This writ petition is filed to declare the action of the respondents in registering multiple FIRs arising out of the same cause of action against the husband of the petitioner as illegal; for a consequential direction to the respondent police to refrain from registering further FIRs against the husband of the petitioner; for treating any existing or future FIRs or complaints made by persons in relation to the actions forming part of the investigation under one FIR as additional witness statements.
3. FACTS :
(i) The petitioner herein is the wife of Mr. Naveen Kumar Chintapandu, alias Teen Mar Mallanna, a Free-press Journalist.
(ii) The husband of the petitioner is running a You Tube Channel named ‘Q’ News. As part of his activities, he conducts interviews and discussions with several prominent persons, who express their views on different issues, such as politics, economics and society, and uploads them on You Tube.
(iii) A case in Crime No.197 of 2021 was registered by the Chilkalguda Police Station, Hyderabad against the husband of the petitioner on 22.04.2021 for the offences under Sections - 387 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) on the allegation that he had threatened the de facto complainant, an Astrologer (Sri Lakshmikant Sarma) and demanded an amount of Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs Only), failing which, the husband of the petitioner herein would spread false news about the Astrologer on Social-media Platforms.
(iv) A notice under Section - 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) was issued and the husband of the petitioner had complied with the same.
(v) The respondent police have registered 35 crimes against the husband of the petitioner in different police stations for offences under various provisions of Law.
4. CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER :
(i) The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that after a lapse of four (04) months, without there-being any fresh material whatsoever, the Investigating Officer in Crime No.197 of 2021 added Section - 306 read with Section 511 of the IPC to the aforesaid offences.
(ii) The police authorities in connivance with political rivals and complainants have registered multiple crimes against the husband of the petitioner based on the same cause of action only to harass him. His implication in criminal cases is only political witch-hunting and arm twisting to stop him from engaging in the free-press.
(iii) The husband of the petitioner was arrested on 28.08.2021. IN recent past 8 crimes were registered against the husband of the petitioner, 5 crimes were registered for abusing the Chief Minister of Telangana State and 3 crimes for using der4ogqatory and abusive language against the Inspector of Police, Chilkalguda Police Station with respect to the allegations from very same cause of action.
(iv) All 35 crimes were registered against the husband of the petitioner at different police stations of Telangana State for different offences on the complaints lodged by different de facto complainants.
(v) Registration of multiple FIRs on the same allegations which arise out of the same cause of action is impermissible. Registration of multiple FIRs violates Articles - 19 (1) (a) and 21 of the Constitution of India. It is also violative of the procedure laid down under the Cr.P.C. and also contrary to the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court in a catena of judgments. It is a vindictive attitude.
(vi) With the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel sought a direction against the respondent police to refrain them from registering further FIRs against the husband of the petitioner.
5. CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS :
(i)
Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar
Jakir Hussain Kosangi v. State of Andhra Pradesh
Yanab Sheikh @ Gagu v. State of West Bengal
Akbaruddin Owaisi v. Government of Andhra Pradesh
P. Sreekumar v. State of Kerala
Samta Naidu v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Krishna Lal Chawla v. State of U.P.
Surender Kaushik v. State of U.P.
The court established that multiple FIRs for the same incident violate legal principles and procedural fairness, emphasizing a consolidated approach for justice.
Multiple FIRs arising from the same transaction are impermissible and must be consolidated for a fair investigation.
Point of law: scope of doctrine of double jeopardy, observing that “in order to attract the provisions of Article 20(2) of the Constitution, there must have been both prosecution and punishment in re....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.