IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.9777 of 2023 DATE OF ORDER:09.03.2026 Between:

M.Yugandhar @ Venkatesh & others ...Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 12 AND The State of Telangana, rep. by its Public Prosecutor and another.

...Respondents

ORDER

1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of The Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, ‘Cr.P.C) seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 12 in S.C.No.318 of 2025, on the file of the learned VII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Nampally at Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 506 read with 34 of IPC.

2. Heard Sri K.Rohit, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Sri M.V.Hanumantha Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2.

3. Learned petitioners’ counsel submits that it is a case of double jeopardy as the petitioners have resorted to file two sets of complaints with the same set of allegations based on a single incident. He further submitted that the earlier complaint was registered under FIR.No.1 of 2021 which was dated 02.01.2021. During pendency of the same, the complainant has filed a private complaint on 31.12.2020 which was returned on 01.02.2021 and the same was resubmitted on 02.09.2021. Thus, the counsel has submitted that Crime No.1 of 2021 was investigated by the Police and they have also filed charge sheet for the offences under Sections 324 and 506 read with 34 of IPC against the petitioners/accused. It is alleged that on 19.11.2020, the mother-in- law of the defacto complainant has passed away and they were attending funeral ceremony and on the said date, her brother-in-law and her son by name M.Yugender @ Venkatesh beat her and her family members with a knife and stick and that all her family members sustained injuries. The charge sheet happened to be filed before the Court of XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad and it was numbered as C.C.No.7298 of 2021. He therefore submits that since the cognizance of the offence was already taken based on the first complaint i.e. FIR.No.1 of 2021, the 2^nd complaint which is in the nature of a private complaint is not tenable in the eye of law in view of the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the case of T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala & Ors., (2001) 6 SCC 181 Thus, continuation of proceedings arising out of private complaint would be an abuse of process of law and hence prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

4. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 has submitted that the Police have not acted upon the first complaint i.e. FIR.No.1 of 2021 and therefore, they approached the Court vide their private complaint and in the interregnum period, the Police have filed the charge sheet. The counsel further argued that the private complaint is filed for the offences under Sections 324, 325, 307 and 506 read with 34 of IPC and since the gravity of alleged offences is severe in nature, the private complaint has to be treated as the first complaint. He contended that private complaint is filed as the Police have not acted upon their 1^st complaint. He further submitted that their private complaint had to be retained and the Court may take a decision as to the maintenance of FIR No.1 of 2021.

5. Perused the record.

6. Admittedly, FIR.No.1 of 2021 is registered based on the complaint given by the respondent No.2 herein on 02.01.2021. The alleged offence pertains to 19.11.2020. The incident complained in the private complaint also refers to the same incident dated 19.11.2020. Thus, both the complaints arose from the same cause of action that is the incident that is alleged to have occurred on 19.11.2020. The principle laid down by the Apex Court in T.T.

Antony v. State of Kerala & Ors., (2001) 6 SCC 181 speaks as follows:

“In respect of the same cognizable offence and same occurrence two FIRs had been lodged and held t