THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.14251 OF 2025

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 4 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.339 of 2025 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jadcherla, registered for the offences under Sections 132, 115(2)

and 352 read with 3(5) of BNS.

2. Heard Sri K. Rama Subba Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the de facto complainant is not the victim and that bald and omnibus allegations are levelled against the petitioners herein. He further submitted that the present complaint is primarily lodged on political rivalry, developing grudge against the petitioners herein. He, therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings in the present C.C.

against the petitioners herein.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that when the local MLA was going on Jai Bapu, Jai Bheem and Jai Samvidhan Programme through the Villages, the petitioners have attacked his procession and entered into an argument with him and when the de facto complainant-Home Guard and LW.2-Sub- Inspector of Police went there to pacify the matter, petitioner No.1 beat LW.2 and abused him in filthy language. He further submitted that since prima facie case is made out against the petitioners, the proceedings in the present C.C. cannot be quashed against the petitioners herein.

5. Perused the record.

6. The incident occurred on 03.04.2025. Based on the same incident, a complaint was filed by the driver of the MLA, based on which Crime No.103 of 2025 of Balanagar Police Station, Mahabubnagar District, was registered with the same set of allegations. The present complaint is filed by the Home Guard, who was attending the duties under the MLA, giving rise to Crime No.104 of 2025 of Balanagar Police Station. Thus, the second F.I.R. based on the same set of allegations cannot be maintained by virtue of the decisions of the Honourable Apex Court in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala and others, (2001) 6 SCC 181 and Babu Bhai v.

State of Gujarat, (2010) 12 SCC 254

7. In T.T. Antony’s case (supra 1), the Honourable Apex Court dealt with a case, wherein it was held that:

“In respect of the same cognizable offence and same occurrence two FIRs had been lodged and held that there can be no second FIR and no fresh investigation on receipt of every subsequent information in respect of the same cognizable offence or same occurrence giving rise to one or more cognizable offences.”

8. In Babu Bhai’s case(supra 2) , the Honourable Supreme Court held that:

“The Court has to examine the facts and circumstances giving rise to both the FIRs and the test of sameness is to be applied to find out whether both the FIRs relate to the same incident in respect of the same occurrence, or are in regard to the incidents which are two or more parts of the same transaction and that if the answer is affirmative, the second FIR is liable to be quashed.”

9. In the present case, since both the complaints arise out of the same incident with the same set of allegations, registration of second F.I.R. is not maintainable. Hence, the proceedings under

the second F.I.R. deserve to be quashed. However, in the above cited decisions, it was held that in case two F.I.Rs. are registered based on the same incident, the statements of witnesses in the second case should be treated as statements under Section 162 Cr.P.C. in the first case.

10. Therefore, the proceedings in C.C.No.339 of 2025 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jadcherla, are hereby quashed against the petitioners herein. The statements of witnesses in the present C.C. are to be referred in C.C.No.340 of 2025 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jadcherla, as the statements under Section 162 Cr.P.C.

11. Subject to the above, the Criminal Pet