THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.11027 OF 2025

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner – accused No.1 seeking to quash the proceedings in FIR No.1292 of 2025 on the file of P.S. Cyberabad, Hyderabad, registered for the offences under Sections 66-C, 66-E ITA-2000-2008 and Section 318(4), 338 read with 3 (5) of The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNS, 2023”) and Section 63, 65 of the CA Act.

2. Heard the submissions of Sri T. V. Ramana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 – State.

3. The learned petitioner counsel has submitted that two FIR’s are being lodged against the same incident which is not maintainable in the eye of law and that it amounts to double jeopardy and that the same set of facts are alleged in both the complaints and the parties are also the same. He further submitted that it is alleged that the petitioner has pirated the video of Kubera Film and that the petitioner has not committed any such offence as alleged by the de-facto complainant. He further submitted that registration of two FIR’s based on the same set of facts is not maintainable. Hence, prayed to quash the second FIR.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that one complaint is lodged against the alleged offence of pirating the CD of Kubera Film and the second compliant is lodged alleging the piracy of HIT Movie. Therefore, the test of sameness cannot be applied here and whenever, two FIR’s are booked based on the same transaction, then it can be said that two FIR’s are not maintainable, but here, the complaints are based on two different incidents. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner counsel is not tenable. He therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Perused the record.

6. The first FIR No.1042 of 2025, dated 05.06.2025 for the offence under Section 66-C, 66-E ITA-2000-2008, 318(4) read with Section 3(5) BNS and Section 63, 65 of CA for alleging the piracy of Hit Movie. The second FIR.No.1292 of 2025 dated 18.07.2025 is registered alleging video piracy of Kubera Film. Therefore, the said two complaints are based on two different incidents and two FIR’s are registered out of the said incidents. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Akbaruddin Owaisi Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Another, 2023 (1) ALD (Crl.)812 (TS) ; wherein a Division Bench of this High Court has held that, the accused was alleged to have rendered a speech at Nirmal and the de-facto complainant has seen the said video in Youtube on 22.12.2024 and thus has lodged a complaint at Wanaparthy. The alleged speech was made by him at Nirmal in Adilabad District and the Police of Nirmal Police Station had already registered a crime against the petitioner. Subsequently, several complaints were filed in several districts based on the same incident i.e., the speech delivered at Nirmal. In the said set of facts, the Division Bench has held that the law recognizes a common trial or a common FIR being registered for one series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction as contemplated under Section 220 of Cr.P.C, the expression same transaction from its very nature is incapable of exact definition. The distinction between two FIR’s relating to the same incident and two FIR’s relating to different incidents or occurrence of the same incident should be carefully examined. The merits of each case must be considered to determine whether the subsequently registered FIR is relating to the same incident or offence, or is based upon distinct and different facts and whether its scope of enquiry is entirely different or not. It will not be appropriate for the Court to lay down one straight jacket

formula uniformly applicable to all the cases. The test to determine whether the two FIR’s can be permitted is whether the two incidents are identical or not as held in Ramlal Narang Vs. State of Delhi, A