BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Reserved on : 27.04.2021 Pronounced on : 03.09.2021 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP Crl.R.C.(MD)No.250 of 2017 K.S.Palanichamy ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The State represented by The Inspector of Police, E.O.W-II, Dindigul.

2.Rathnakumar ... Respondents Prayer: Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 r/w. 401 of Cr.P.C, to call for the records pertaining to the order taking cognizance passed by the learned Special Judge for TNPID Act cases at Madurai in the above C.C.No.24 of 2013 dated 08.04.2013 which was the culmination of the second FIR in Crime No.2 of 2011 of the E.O.W-II, Dindigul, and set aside the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.D.S.Haroon Rasheed For Respondents : Mr.A.P.G.Ohm Chairma Prabhu Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for R1

O R D E R

This Revision Petition is filed against the order passed by the learned Special Judge for TNPID Act cases at Madurai in C.C.No.24 of 2013 dated 08.04.2013.

2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner herein had been arrayed as an accused in the case pending before the learned Special Judge for TNPID Act cases, Madurai. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that already a case was registered against the petitioner by Economic Offence Wing and in this regard, investigation has already been completed and a charge sheet has also been filed before the learned Special Judge for TNPID Act cases, Madurai. Subsequently, A2, who had been running the Company, was arrayed as an accused in yet another criminal case by the Economic Offence Wing, Dindugal. The very same Company is an accused under the Economic Offence Wing, Dindugal under TNPID Act cases. Now, there are two cases pending against the very same person for the very same offences. Therefore, the learned counsel seeks appropriate orders from this Court, clubbing the subject matter in the charge sheet of two cases, so that only one case can be proceeded against the petitioner. Two charge sheets were framed for the same offence by two Investigation Officers of the Economic Offence Wing. One by Economic Offence Wing, Dindugal and another by Economic Offence Wing, Madurai.

3.The learned counsel would further contend that the Investigation Officer may be directed to club the offences into one single charge sheet, since the offences are same, the company is same, the accused are same and only the witnesses are vary. He would rely on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in CDJ 2015 APHC 481 (Veerabhadram Vislavath Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and another)

wherein, in paragraph No.7, it had been discussed as follows:-

“7.POINT: There can be no demur that perusal of FIR No.250 of 2013 shows that it contains strong prima facie allegations against all the accused. Be that as it may, when the allegations in FIR No.250 of 2013 and allegations in FIR No.216 of 2013 a copy of which is filed by the petitioner, are compared, they would show that both the FIRs contain same set of facts and allegations against the accused. Except the narration wise difference difference here and there, the main incidents relating to the offences are virtually same in both the FIRs. Crime No.216 of 2013 is the earliest one lodged by G.Vani on 20.05.2013 at about 20.00 hours in Bowenpally P.S. whereas FIR No.250 of 2013 was also lodged on 20.05.2013 at about 21.00 hours by G.Mallesham in Balanagar P.S.

a) Now the question is whether two or more separate complaints in different police stations relating to same offence/occurrence can be lodged and investigated into. It must be said that this legal question is no more res integra and the same was dealt with by a learned Judge of this High Court in a recent decision reported in Akbaruddin Owaisi Vs. The Government of Andhra Pradesh (2014) CriLJ 2199 (AP). In that case the questions that came up for consideration are:

“Does Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code

1973 (