THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA WRIT PETITION No.22188 OF 2025

ORDER:

The present writ petition is filed by the petitioners to declare the Second FIR for same cause of action as illegal, devoid of merits by concerned police and consequentially quash the FIR and all subsequent proceedings in FIR No.35 of 2025 on the file of Bandlaguda Police Station, Hyderabad against the petitioners.

2. Heard the submissions of Sri Vijay Gopal, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Mahesh Raje, learned Government Pleader for Home, appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

3. The learned petitioners counsel has submitted that all the family members of petitioner No.1 are made as accused and that this is a second FIR registered against them, which is not correct and that it goes against the principle of double jeopardy and that the rights of the petitioners get effected and that there was a consensual relationship between the de facto complainant and accused No.1. However, the de facto complainant has filed the complaint with all false allegations. Initially, the complaint was filed by her mother, which was registered at Matwada Police Station, Warangal and the second complaint is lodged by the de facto complainant herself implicating all his family members, he therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings against them.

4. The learned Government Pleader has submitted that the petitioners can as well appear before the police and Cooperate with the investigating agency, so that they can file appropriate report before the concerned officer.

5. Perused the record.

6. The petitioners is facing allegations under Sections 79, 78, 77, 336(4), 351(2) read with Section 3(5) BNS, which are of serious nature. The record discloses two FIRs. The first FIR vide FIR No.04 of 2025 was registered on 05.01.2025 based on the complaint given by the mother of the complainant alleging that the petitioner and his family members have been blackmailing and threatening her daughter to marry the petitioner No.1 and also to pay Rs.1,50,000/- for deleting the private nude photos and videos which were taken while she was using washroom and bathing etc., it is alleged to have been taken by installing spy cameras. Subsequent to the said FIR, on 25.01.2025 with the same set of allegations another FIR vide FIR No.35 of 2025 got to be registered by the victim on the file of P.S.Bandlaguda.

7. Article 20 of the Constitution of India provides protection in respect of conviction for offences and Clause (2) of Article 20 envisages that no person can be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once. Clause (2) of Article 20 of Constitution is extracted hereunder for the sake of reference:

"(2) No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once”

8. It protects individuals from double jeopardy, no person shall be prosecuted for the same offence twice.

9. The truth or otherwise of the allegations can be unravelled at a later point of time but two complaints and two FIRs based on the same allegations against the same accused are not just and proper. 10. The learned counsel has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Babu Bhai v. State of Gujarat¹, wherein it was held that the Court has to examine the facts and circumstances giving rise to

(2010) 12 SCC 254

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.

11. In T.T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala & Ors., (2001) 6 SCC 181, the Apex Court dealt with a case wherein 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