Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
K. LAKSHMAN, J.
Mudavath Ramesh - Appellant
Vs.
The State of Telangana - Respondent
Criminal Petition No.641 of 2025
Decided On : 21-04-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of the criminal petition (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. arguments of petitioners and prosecution (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. circumstances surrounding the incidents (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. analysis of allegations against petitioners (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. legal principles on multiple firs (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 6. distinctions between valid and invalid firs (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 7. details on complaints and fir registrations (Para 35 , 36) |
| 8. concluding remarks on allegations. (Para 39) |
| 9. court's final order on the petition (Para 44 , 46 , 47) |
ORDER :
(K. LAKSHMAN, J.)
Heard Sri R. Prashanth, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Ms. Shalini Saxena, learned counsel representing Sri Palle Nageshwar Rao, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for respondents.
2. This criminal petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘ BNSS ’) to set aside the remand docket orders both dated 09.01.2025 in Cr.No.154 and 155 of 2024 of P.S.Bomraspet, pertaining to the same incident which is the subject matter of FIR No.153 of 2024 of P.S. Bomraspet, passed by the II Additional Special Judge for Trial of SPE &ACB Cases –cum – Special Judge for Trial of Cases filed Under PDPP Act, Hyderabad (for short, ‘the trial Court’) and consequently quash the proceedings in the above said crimes.
3. Vide the aforesaid remand orders, the trial Court remanded the petitioners herein to judicial custody till 23.01.2025 in Cr.No.154 and 155 of 2024.
4.The particulars of the date, place and time of incident, offences which are relevant and the same are extracted below:-
| Cr. No. | Name of the complainant & Designation | Place of the incident | Time of the incident | Offences |
| 153/ 2024 | N.Srinivasa Reddy, Sub Divisional Police Officer, Vikarabad | Anjaneya Temple, Primary School, Lagcherla | 12.20 PM | under Sections 61 (2), 191(2), 191(3) 132,109, 121(1), 126(2), 324 (4) read with 190 BNS, Section 3 of PDPPA |
| 154/ 2024 | Karra Kishan MRO, Dudyal | Hanuman temple, Lagicherla | Not specific ally mentio ned in the complai nt | under Sections 191(2), 191(3) 132,109, 121(1), 126(2), 324 (4) read with 190 BNS, Section 3 of PDPPA |
| 155/ 2024 | District Crime Report Bureau, (DCRB) DSP, Vikarabad | Chellapuram Venkataiah’s residence, Lagcherla | 12.20 PM | under Sections 191(2), 191(3) 132,109, 121(1), 126(2), 324 (4) read with 190 BNS, Section 3 of PDPPA |
5. The petitioners herein are A.32, A.68, A.69 and A.70 in Cr.No.153 of 2024.
6. The contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners are as follows:-
i. The proceedings are maliciously instituted with an intention to implicate the petitioners in the present crimes. Therefore, continuation of proceedings against the petitioners in the aforesaid crimes is an abuse of process of law.
ii. The police completed material part of the investigation and all material witnesses were examined as such there will be no apprehension of tampering with the evidence.
iii. The petitioners attended the public hearing to express their grievance relating to the proposed land acquisition proceedings but not involved in the alleged incident as such no such motive could be attributed to the petitioners.
iv. The prosecution failed to show that the petitioners herein had shared a common object with other Members of the alleged unlawful assembly.
v. The date of incident, place of incident etc., are same. Basing on the same incident, the police cannot register the aforesaid three crimes against the petitioner herein.
vi. The allegation against the petitioners herein is conspiracy.
vii. The allegations leveled against the petitioners in all three crimes are one and the same and therefore, registration of the other two crimes i.e. Cr.Nos.154 and 155 of 2024 is illegal and they are liable to be quashed.
viii. Reliance is placed on the principle laid down in Akbaruddin Owaisi vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, [2013 (6) ALT 101], Smt. K.Mathamma vs. State of Telangana, 2022 (1)ALT (Crl) 12 (T.S.).
With the said submissions, he sought to quash the Cr.Nos.154 and 155 of 2024.
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 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....
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....
The court established that multiple FIRs for the same incident violate legal principles and procedural fairness, emphasizing a consolidated approach for justice.
Two separate FIR - Investigation - Permissible - Simultaneous investigation would not amount to fresh investigation. Interference in a matter where the earliest information prima facie makes out cogn....
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
