IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.20059 OF 2018 DATED: 05.12.2025 Between:

M/s. SRK Food Products Private Limited, Rep. by its Managing Director Harish Gupta, And 2 others. … Petitioners AND The State of Telangana, Rep., by its Principal Secretary, Home Department and 4 others. … Respondents

O R D E R:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following relief/s:-

“…to issue a Writ or Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the highhanded action of 3^rd respondent in issuing the Notice under Section 91/160 of Cr.P.C., dated 10.01.2018 served on 08.06.2018 with letter No.473/ACP-IBP/RKD/2018 and Section 41 Notice dated 08.06.2018 letter No.472/ACP-IBP/RKD/2018 to petitioners 1 and 2 with an anti date on its as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and pass…”

2. None appeared on behalf of the petitioners.

3. Heard Mr. D. Pradeep, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 4.

4.1. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on instructions, submits that the de facto complainant/unofficial respondent had earlier lodged a report which was registered as Crime No.245 of 2016, and after due investigation, the same culminated in C.C. No.125 of 2017 on the file of the learned XXV Metropolitan Magistrate, Ibrahimpatnam, which is presently pending trial. Subsequently, the de facto complainant also filed a private complaint before the Magistrate concerned, which was registered as Crime No.7 of 2018, and after completion of investigation, it culminated in C.C. No.790 of 2018, pending before the learned XV Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ibrahimpatnam.

4.2. It is further contended that although the offences alleged against the petitioners appear to be similar in nature, they pertain to different transactions that occurred at distinct points of time, thereby constituting separate and independent causes of action. Hence, registration of separate crimes and continuation of the prosecution in each case is legally justified. Accordingly, the contention of the petitioners that registration of the second crime amounts to duplication of proceedings is untenable. It is, therefore, prayed that the writ petition be dismissed as devoid of merit.

5. I have perused the material placed on record.

6. The grievance of the petitioners is that the respondent police authorities have registered two separate crimes for the same alleged offence, thereby subjecting them to parallel prosecutions in violation of the principles of double jeopardy and protection against multiple proceedings. They, therefore, seek quashing of the subsequent crime.

7. However, the material on record indicates that the unofficial respondent has alleged that the petitioners have been infringing upon his business interests by unlawfully using a similar trademark and continuing such acts of infringement even after the first case was registered. The acts of infringement alleged up to the year 2016 were the subject matter of Crime No.245 of 2016, while the subsequent acts of infringement were separately reported and registered as Crime No.7 of 2018. It is further contended that, notwithstanding the registration of the earlier case, the petitioners have continued to infringe the trademark and carry on similar business activities thereafter, giving rise to a fresh cause of action. 8. As rightly pointed out by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, though the nature of the alleged offence may appear similar, the acts complained of relate to different time periods and constitute distinct transactions, thereby giving rise to separate and independent offences. The bar under Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India (the principle of double jeopardy) applies only where the accused has been tried and c