ORDER :

1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) by the petitioners/A1 to A5 to quash the proceedings against them in P.R.C.No.12 of 2022 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thungathurthy and also subsequent proceedings after committal of the case to Sessions Court at Suryapet. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 498-A, 304 (B), 201 r/w.34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Heard both sides and perused the record.

3. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that on 17.08.2019, the daughter of the 2nd respondent who was married to 1st petitioner died by committing suicide. On the very same day, a complaint was registered under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. as suspicious death and registered as Crime No.93 of 2019. On 17.08.2019 inquest panchanama was held and the father of the deceased informed that the deceased committed suicide for the reason of acute stomach pain.

4. On 18.10.2019 the body was exhumed by the Tahasildar, Maddirala by conducting exhumation panchanama, for the reason of the 2nd respondent expressing doubt about the death and suspected that accused might have committed murder and later hanged the deceased. The team of doctors conducted Post-mortem examination and gave opinion that the death was on account of hanging.

5. On 12.06.2021 a private complaint which was filed by the 2nd respondent was referred for the purpose of investigation. The said private complaint was registered as crime No.70/2021 of Maddirala Police Station and the police started investigation. During the course of investigation, the Police found that these petitioners were in fact responsible for the death of the deceased and it is a dowry death. For the said reason, charge sheet was filed for the offence under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 201 r/w.34 of the Indian Penal Code.

6. On the basis of the crime registered subsequently, the Police found that the marriage was performed on 31.03.2019 and at the time of marriage Rs.3 lakhs cash was given as dowry on the demand made by these petitioners. One month after the marriage, the husband-A1 started harassing the deceased for not giving sufficient dowry. The parents of the deceased gave cash of Rs.6.5 lakhs to A1, however, A1 continuously harassed her. The deceased went to her house for ‘Rakhi’ festival and celebrated festival with her cousins and returned to her in-laws house. On 17.08.2019, information was received that the deceased committed suicide.

7. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the proceedings have to be quashed as registration of the second FIR on the basis of the complaint filed is contrary to procedure and law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court. Since the crime was initially registered for suspicious death, any subsequent statement made by any of the witnesses to the incident should be considered as statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C and cannot be registered again.

8. He relied on the Judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court in T.T.Antony v. State of Kerala : (2001) 6 Supreme Court Cases 181, Babu Bhai v. State of Gujarat : (2010) 12 Supreme Court Cases 254, Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah vs. Central Bureau of Investigation : (2013) 6 Supreme Court Cases 348 and Santa Naidu v. State of Madhya Pradesh : AIR 2020 Supreme Court 2573.

9. The law laid down in the aforesaid Judgments is that there cannot be second FIR for the very same occurrence and only if the case pertains to two different incidents then the second FIR is permissible. It was further held in Babubhai’s case (supra) that when two FIRs are registered, test of sameness has to be applied and see whether the FIR subsequently registered is one and the same or not. It was held by the Honourable Supreme Court in the Judgment of Samata Naidu’s case (supra) that when core allegations in the two complaints which were made are same, the second complaint would not be maintainable.

10. For the reason of the