Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
T.VINOD KUMAR
Chavva Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana Home – Respondent
ORDER :
T. VINOD KUMAR, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 7, and with their consent the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at admission stage.
2. Having regard to the manner of disposal of the writ petition and the nature of lis involved, this Court is of the view that notice to unofficial respondent Nos.8 to 11 is not necessary for adjudication of the present Writ Petition
3. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that respondent Nos.2 to 7 are registering multiple FIRs on the file of the 5th respondent-Police Station in respect of the same transaction/incident covered by FIR.No.193/2018, which action of the respondents is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 & 21 of the Constitution of India.
4. Petitioners further contends that as the respondents- authorities having already registered a case vide FIR.No.193/2018, the authorities ought to not to have registered further crime as the same arise out of the same transaction/incident, and on the other hand, the respondents-authorities ought to have treated the complaint given by the other complainants as statements under Section
The court affirmed that multiple FIRs can be registered for distinct complaints arising from separate transactions, which do not constitute a violation of legal principles against multiple registrati....
The court held that multiple FIRs cannot be registered for the same incident under established legal principles, emphasizing prohibitions against successive registrations when based on identical clai....
Multiple FIRs cannot be registered for the same incident arising from identical accusations against the same parties, highlighting abuse of process and procedural injustice.
The registration of multiple FIRs for the same incident violates principles established by the Supreme Court, asserting they are impermissible under Article 21 and an abuse of process.
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....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
