The court established that multiple FIRs for the same incident violate legal principles and procedural fairness, emphasizing a consolidated approach for justice.

1. Since, the prayer sought for in these writ petitions are similar in nature, these writ petitions are taken up together for disposal.

2. The writ petitioners sought for a declaration that the action of the Respondent Police in registering multiple First Information Reports subsequently after registering a First Information Report in Crime Nos.190 and 191 of 2018 by the 5th respondent police for the entire occurrence happened on 22.05.2018, during the Anti Stertile Protest at Thoothukudi, as illegal, null and void and consequently direct the 3rd Respondent to treat the same as statements under S.161(3) of Cr.P.C. in Crime Nos.190 and 191 of 2018 transferred to their file from the file of 5th Respondent.

3. Heard Mr. N. R. Elango, learned Senior Counsel for petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.15421 of 2018, Mr. Ajmal Khan, learned Senior Counsel for petitioner in W.P. (MD) No.15660 of 2018, Mr. Henri Tiphagne, learned counsel, and Mr. P. H. Arvind Pandian, Additional Advocate General and Mr. K. Chellapandian, learned Additional Advocate General for respondents.

4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for writ petitioners submitted that F.I.R. registered in Crime No.191 of 2018 on the file of SIPCOT Police Station for offences under S.147, S.148, S.188, S.324, S.332, S.353, S.448, S.450, S.307, S.436, S.506 (ii), I.P.C. and S.3(1) and S.4 of Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992, S.3 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and S.174 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 related to the entire happenings in and around Tuticorin on 22.05.2018 and on which date as many as 13 persons lost their lives owing to police shooting. They contended that the State has resorted to filing of multiple FIRs which caused great prejudice not only to the accused but also caused great fear in the minds of local residents. In a particular case, an accused has been named in as many 100 cases and in another in 85 cases. Persons facing such position are numerous. Local residents, having suffered very painful loss of their loved ones, are being denied even the right to grieve and mourn their loss by being put in constant fear of the police midnight knock.

5. The response of learned counsel for respondents is not one of denial of a particular individual being arrayed as accused in very many cases. It is one pleading justification of the registration of the multiple FIRs.

6. Counsel on either side have referred to various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In fact counsel on either side frequently referred to decisions relied on by the other. While one would place reliance and inform application of particular paragraphs, the other would do likewise regards other paragraphs of the same judgment. We do not intend to enter upon a thread bare discussion of the various decisions relied upon. We would, after hereunder translating FIR in Crime No.191 of 2018, refer to those judgments, which in our view lay down propositions of law applicable to the facts of the case as distinct from particular facts attending the particular judgment relied upon.

7. On translation, FIR in Crime No.191 of 2018 reads thus:

"Humbly submitted. Today i.e., 22.05.2018 at 17.00 hours I M. Hariharan, Inspector of Police, Sipcot Police Station, Thoothukudi was on Station Duty, registered a case in Crime No.191 of 2018 u / S.147, S.148, S.188, S.324, S.332, S.353, S.448, S.450, S.307, S.436, S.506(ii), I.P.C. and 3(1), 4 of TNPPDL Act and S.3 of ES Act, R/w 174, Cr.P.C. on the complaint lodged by Mr. Sekar, Special Deputy Thasildar (Election) of Thoothukudi Taluk Office by appearing before me. The details of which are follows: From P.Sekar, Special Deputy Thasildar (Election), Ta