Since the issue involved in these petitions is similar, they

are taken up and heard together and disposed of by a common

order.

In Crl.P No.2052/2018:

A FIR was lodged by the 2nd respondent, alleging

that, she is one of the co-owners of the subject property, and

one Muniraju @ Thulasi Muniraju claiming to be a person with

political background and having nexus with police authorities

was often interfering with the possession over the subject

property, and when she questioned the accused, they shouted

at her and her children, by using filthy language and gave life

threat to her, and her family members. The accused and others

made attempts to molest the female members of her family by

touching private parts. The police after investigation submitted

the charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections

506, 504, 354 of IPC. The cognizance taken by the learned

Magistrate of the aforesaid offences is impugned in this

petition.

- 5 -

In Crl.P No.555/2018:

A FIR was lodged by the 2nd respondent making

the very same allegations against the accused, which was made

in the FIR in Crime No.167/2017. The registration of FIR is

impugned in this petition.

4.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

submits that the subject property was conveyed to the accused

No.1 by the husband of the 2nd respondent, which is evident

from the sale deed dated 25.1.2005. Hence, he submits that

the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature,

however, given criminal texture, to wreak vengeance and with

revengeful intent. He further submits that the registration of

FIR on the very same set of allegations is impermissible and

also violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In

support, he places a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

the case of Amitbhai Anil Chandra Shah v. CBI and Anr.

((2013)6 SCC 348).

5.

The 2nd respondent though served with notice has

not chosen to appear in person or through her counsel.

- 6 -

6.

The

learned

High

Court

Government

Pleader

appearing for the respondent - State, submits that the charge

sheet material discloses the commission of the aforesaid

offences, and the veracity of the allegation requires to be

investigated, and at this stage, the registration of FIR or

cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate does not warrant

any interference.

7.

I have considered the submissions of the learned

counsel appearing for the parties.

8.

A

perusal

of

the

FIR

registered

in

Crime

No.167/2017 and Crime No.168/2018 discloses that the

allegation made against the petitioners - accused are verbatim,

and relates to the same incident. The Apex Court in the

case of Amitbhai Anil Chandra Shah (supra) has held as

follows:

" 58.5. The first information report is a report

which gives first information with regard to any

offence. There cannot be second FIR in respect of

the same offence/event because whenever any

further information is received by the investigating

agency, it is always in furtherance of the first FIR."

- 7 -

In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

the case of Amitbhai Anil Chandra Shah (supra), the

registration of the second FIR in Crime No.168/2017 is

impermissible and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of

India.

9.

The police after the investigation the charge sheet

in Crime No.167/2017. A perusal of the charge sheet material

discloses that there is no specific allegation, as to how, and in

what manner, the petitioners - accused have molested the

female members of the family of the defacto complainant, and

there is no material placed along with the charge sheet, as to

who among the female members of the defacto complainant

were molested. In the absence of any material, that the

petitioners - accused have outraged the modesty, the

cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate of the offence

under Section 354 of Cr.PC only on the omnibus and general

allegations made by the defecto complainant is impermissible.

10.

The petitioners have produced a c