Disposed

Akbaruddin Owaisi v. State of a.P., Rep. by P.P. and Anr.

Telangana HC21 Mar 2022CRLP/4661/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Multiple complaints in different states over the same alleged hate speech were quashed as impermissible second FIRs; the trial continuing on the first FIR before the Special Sessions Court for MPs and MLAs was allowed to proceed.

What did the court decide?

All criminal petitions disposed; subsequent complaints quashed/discontinued; trial in S.C.No.3 of 2013 on first FIR to continue; interim orders modified accordingly.

Akbaruddin Owaisi Vs State of a.P., Rep. by P.P. and Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^{OF TELANGANA: AT HYDERABAD}

¶2

MONDAY,THE TWENTY FIRST^{DAY OF IVARCH} rWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^UJJALBHUYAN

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITI ON Nos.230 5^{0F 2013 . 3306 0F 2013 . 4661 of 2013.} 7084 of 2014 AND 1315 of 2015

¶6

CrlP.No.2305 ol 2013

¶7

Between:

¶8

Akbaruddin Owaisi, S/o.late^{Salauddin Owaisi}

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

State of Andhra Pradesh,^{Rep., by its Public Prosecutor, HighCourt at} Hyderabad.

¶12

Kaatanigouni ft/ohan Goud,,^{S/o. Kaatani Bhagawanth Goud}

¶13

..RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition under Section^{482 o'f Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances} stated in the lvlemorandum^{of Groundsof criminalPetition,the High court may} be pleased to call for the^{records pertaining to cc.No.19of 2013 registered} against the^petitioner on the file^{of the JudicialFirst ClassMagistrate,} Wanaparthy and^quash the same.

¶15

CrlP.No.33 06 of 20'13

¶16

Between:

¶17

Akbaruddin Owaisi, Sio.late Salauddin Owaisi

¶18

...PETITIONER

¶19

AND

¶20

State of Telangana, Rep., by its Public^{Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad.}

¶21

Balam Eshwar Yadav, S/o.Veeraiah

¶22

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶23

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^{praying that in the circumstances} stated in the [,4emorandum of Grounds^{of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be} pleased toto call for the records of the CC.No.21 of 2013 registered^agarnst petitioner on the file of the ll ltrletropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad,^L.B.Nagar including orders dt.07-01-2013 taking cognizance of^{the complaint and orders}

¶24

made in Crl.lr/P.No.545 of 2013, dt. 01-04-2013 and quash all proceedings th e rein.

¶25

CrlP NO: 466'l OF 2013

¶26

Between:

¶27

Akbaruddin Owaisi, S/o.Late Salauddin Owaisi

¶28

..PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶29

AND

¶30

The State of Telangana, through its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad.

¶31

2- Kashimshetty Karunasagar, S/o.Krishnaiah

¶32

,..RESPONDENT/COM PLAINANT

¶33

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the [t/emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to call for the records of the CC No.3'14 of 2013 registered against the petitioner on the file of the Vll Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad including orders taking cognizance of the compliant and quash all proceedings therein.

¶34

CrlP NO: 7084 OF 2014

¶35

Betwee n:

¶36

Akbaruddin Owaisi, S/o. Late Salahuddin Owaisi

¶37

...PETtTtONER/ACCUSED(S)

¶38

AND

¶39

State of Telangana, rep. through its Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad.

¶40

State of Jharkhand, Rep., by its Secretary, Department of Home Affairs, State Secretariat, Ranchi - 834 001 , Jharkhand.

¶41

Sri Vidhyasagar Giri,

¶42

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS

¶43

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to exercise its power under section 186 Cr.p.C read with Sec.4B2 of cr.P.c and Article 226 of the constitution of lndia for the purpose of deciding the appropriate court that ought to enquire into and try into the offences relating to the allegations of the petitioners each now taken cognizance in by the court of

¶44

¶45

ll lvletropolitan lt/agistrate, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad (amongst others) and in CC.No.41 of 2013 on the file of the Chief Judicial lvlagistrate, Bokaro.

¶46

CrlP NO: 1315 OF 2015

¶47

Between:

¶48

Akbaruddin Owaisi, S/o. Late Salahuddin Owaisi

¶49

.-.PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶50

AND

¶51

State of Telangana, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad

¶52

State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad

¶53

State of Maharashtra, Rep. by Secretary, Department of Home Affairs, State Secretariat, lrr'lumbai - [V'laharashtra

¶54

Ghulam Husain Khan,

¶55

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS

¶56

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to exercise its powers under Sec. 1 86 of Cr. P.C read with Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C. and Article 226 of the lndian Constitution for the^purpose of deciding the appropriate court that ought to enquire into and try the offences relating^{to the} allegations against the Petitioner out of the courts that have already taken cognizance in respect of the same alleged incident(s) between the Court of the^I Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class Kadapa or by the court of ll [,4etropolitan It4agistrate, Cyberabad at LB Nagar, Hyderabad and in CC No.17lSW/1 3 on the file of'the l,4etropolitan l,4agistrate 51 Court at Kurla, N4umbai.

¶57

These Petitions coming on for hearing, upon^perusing the^{N,4emorandumof} Grounds of Criminal Petitions and upon hearing the argumenls of^Srr S.NIRANJAN REDDY, Senior Counsel appearing for SRI N,NAVEEN^KUMAR Advocate for the Petitioners⁽ⁱⁿ all Crl.Ps) and of the^{Public Prosecutor on behalf} of the Respondent No.1(in all Crl.Ps) and of Sri^{KURALASUNILGOUD,} Advocate for the Respondent No.2 in Crl.P.No.2305/20'13 and of SRI^T.SRUJAN KUMAR REDDY, Advocate for Respondent No.2 (Sri Sriram^in' Crl. P. No.4661/2013)

¶58

The Court made the following:

¶59

¶60

UB,J (lP.2jos'3306'166120|34

¶61

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE UJJAL BHTryAN

¶62

Criminal Petition No.23OS of 2O13 Criminal Petition No.33O6 of 2013 Criminal Petition No.4661 of 2O13 Criminal Petition No.7084 of 2Ol4 and Criminal Petition No.1315 of 2O15

¶63

COMMON ORDER:

¶64

This order u,ill dispose of Criminal Petition Nos.2305 of 2013, 3306 of 2013, 4661 of 2013,7084 of 2Ol4 ald 1315 of 2015.

¶65

Heard Mr. S. Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. N. Naveen Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr.C.Pratap Reddy, learned Public prosecutor and Mr.S.Sudershan, learned Additional public prosecutor, for the respondent-State.

¶66

¶67

UB,J

¶68

All the petitions have been filed under section

¶69

482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) for quashing of the complaints on the ground that the complaints filed relate to the same incident registered with Nirmal Police Station in the District of Adilabad in Crime No.1 ol 2013.

¶70

+. In ail the criminal petitions, petitioncr 1S Akbaruddin Owaisi, w,ho has been named as "accused" in all the criminal complaints.

¶71

Since Criminal Petition No.2305 of 2013 was filed first in point of time, lor the sake of convenience, the facts pleaded in the said petition are adverted to hereunder.

¶72

On 16.OL.2013, one Kaatagoni Mohan Goud as a the complainant, lodged complaint before the Judicia-l First Class Magistrate at Wanaparthy naming

¶73

¶74

UB,J .ll',70342o1.&13152015

¶75

pctitioner as "accused" therein. The complainant mentioned that he was a permanent resident of Wanaparthy town in the District of Mahabubnagar and a legal practitioner belonging to orthodox Hindu family. The complainant stated that on 29.12.2012, at about 7.00 p.m., while he was browsing through the internet, he came across a video in youTube site, wherein the accused was addressing a pubtic meeting held at Nirmal town, Adilabad District in a high pitched voice, and he had used highly inflammatory and derogatory words against the Hindu religion. Hindu Gods and Goddesses. Such utterances caused a deep sense o[ hurt to the complainant. His religious scntlments were particularly hurt, because the accused was a sitting MLA. Accordingly, he requested the learned Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence committed by the accused under section 29g of

¶76

It II

¶77

::6::

¶78

W,,T c,lr_23o5, 33cr6, 456 1 '20 I 3 a

¶79

the Indian Penal Code, 186 1 (lPC) and, therealter to issue summons to him to stand trial.

¶80

On receipt ol such complaint, learned Magistrarc recorded the statement of the complainant. Thereafter, he passed order dated 23.01.2O13 holding that there was a pima facie case to take cognizance of oflences under Sections 153, 153-8 and 298 ol I.P.C. The said complaint was registered as C.C.No.19 of 2OI3. Following the same, the learned Magistrate issued summons to the accused, i.e., the petitioner, for appearance on 15.03.20 13.

¶81

According to the petitioner, in respect of the same alleged speech made by him at Nirmal in Adilabad District, police of Nirmal Po[ce Station had alreadr' registered a crime against the petitioner on 02.01 .2013 being Crime No.i of 2013 under Sections 153-A and I 121 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (iPC).

.. r..

UB,J

Contending that {iling of subsequent complaint is nothing but an attempt to ha_rass the petitioner, besides being an abuse of the process of law, the present criminal pctition came to be llled.

¶86

1O. This Court. b1,' order dated 26.O3.2O13, had issued notice and stayed further proceedings in C. C. No.19 of 2013 on the Iile of Judicial First C1ass Magistrate at Wanaparthy.

¶87

Thereafter, Criminal Petition No.33O6 of 2Ol3 came to be filed by the petitioner for quashing of the proceedings in C.C.No.21 of 2O13 on the lile of II Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar. Here also it is contended that the complaint made in C.C.No.21 ol 2013 relates to the same incident covered by Crime No.l of 2013 registered before the Nirmal Police Station. This Court, by order dated 1g.04.2013, had stayed lurther proceedings in C.C.No.21 of 2013.

¶88

¶89

UB,J t?Lp 2305. t3o6,1551 2or3 4

¶90

Thereafter, Criminal Petition No.466 1 of 2O 13 came to be filed by the petitioner assailing C.C.No. 314 of 2013 on the file of VII Additiona_l Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad on the same ground pertaining to the alieged speech of the petitioner at Nirma-l, which is subject matter of Crime No.1 of 2013 registered before Nirmal Police Station. This Court, by order dated 08.05.2013, had admitted the said petition and granted stay of further proceedings in C.C.No.314 of 2013.

¶91

Criminal Petition No.7084 of 2Ol4 perrains to C.C.No.41 ol 2013 registered before the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Bokaro in the State of Jharkhand. It is stated that C.C.No.4l of 2013 relates to the alleged speech of the petitioner made at Nirmal town, which is the subject matter of Crime No.1 of 2013 registered before the Nirmal Police Station. This Court by order

UB,J

dated 04.07.2014 htad admitted the Criminal Petition and granted stay of further proceedings in C.C.No.41 of 2013.

¶96

L4. Likewise Crimina-l Petition No. 13 15 of 20 1 5 came to be filed by the petitioner assailing the legality and validity of C.C.No. 17 ISW 12013 pending on the file of Metropolitan Magistrate 51"t Court at Kurla, Mumbai relating to the alleged speech of the petitioner delivered al Nirmal town. n'hich is subject matter of Cnme No. 1 o1' 2013 registercd at Nirmal Police Station. By order dated 08.06.2015, rhis Court had admitted the aforesaid Criminal Petition and had granted stay.

¶97

During the hearing, a memo dated O9.O2.2O22 was filed on beha,lf of the petitioner in Criminai Petition No.23O5 of 20 13. It is stated therein that the police had completed investigation in Crime No.1 of 2013 on the file of Nirmal police Station. Upon

¶98

: : 10::

¶99

W,J ..v-23O5,3306,^tt66, 2013 A. c?b 7oaL2ot. .. r3|s 2ors

¶100

completion of investigation, police submitted chargesheet before the Court of Additional Judiciai Magistrate of First Class at Nirmal. Thereafter, the Court of Additional Judicial l{agistrate of First Class took cognizance of the charge-sheet vide order dated 30.01.2018 lor olfences punishable under Sections 120-B, 12t-A, 124-A,298, 153-A, 295-A,298, 505 and 188 of IPC. It is further stated that subsequently the above case was transferred and committed to the Court of I Special Sessions Court for Trial of MPs and MLAs, Hyderabad vide order dated 10.12.2019 and therea-fter renumbered as S.C.No.3 of 2013. Petitioner had received summons dated 26.08.2O2I in S.C. No. 3 of 2013.

¶101

Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the provisions o[ Sections 186 and 2O1 of Cr.P.C and submits that trial arising out of Crime No.1 ol

::11::

UB,J

t I

2013, which is registered before the Nirmal^Police Station, should be allowed to continue and all lurther proceedings should be discontinued. He submits that filing ol second FIR on the same incident is inrpermissiblc in law. Lodging ol multiple FIRs at different places relating to an alleged offence committed at one place is nothing but an attempt to harass the petitioner, and would be clearly an abuse of the process of the Court. In support of such submissions, reliance has been placed on the following decisions, viz., Akbaruddin Owaisi vs. Government of A.P.1, T.T. Antony vs. State of Kerala2, Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah vs. Central Bureau of Investigation3, and Amish Devgan vs. Union of Indiaa.

¶106

¶107

I 20 13 (6) ALT 10 I , 2001 (6) SCC 181 I2013 (6) SCC 348 4 2021 (1) SCC (1)

¶108

w,J .ttp 2305,3306,4661 20) 3 n

¶109

II I

¶110

:iL2:i

¶111

While learned Public Prosecutor does nor dispute the legal contentions urged by learned counsel for the petitioner, none-the-less he submits that complaints lodged by different complainants may be treated as statements made under Section 162 of the Cr.P.C. and they can also be made witnesses in the proceedings in S.C.No.3 of 2013.

¶112

Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have received the due consideration of the Court

¶113

L9. Perused the contents of the FIR lodged before Nirmal Police Station on 02.01.2O13. The lirst inlormation was lodged by a police oflicial ol Nirmal Police Station by the name ol Laxmi Narsimha Swamv. According to him, there was a public meeting at Nirmal on 22.12.2012. The meeting was organized by AIMIM, a political part5r, and permission for use of loud

¶114

¶115

::13::

¶116

UB,J c.|P7o3.2011613,52015

¶117

) )

¶118

speaker in the meeting was obta-ined on the assurance that there would not be any nuisance or annoyance to the public. The meeting was addressed by several politicians including the petitioner, who was an MLA. The speech delivered by the petitioner \r:a s highly provocative, insulting religions other than the Muslim religion. He also stated that if police u,as withdrawn lor fifteen minutes. he u,ould shou' what they were capable of. Such extreme utterances, provocative and hrghlf irrllzrmmatory langr-rage had hurt the sentiments ol the people, besides promoting enmity between different groups of people on the ground of religion.

¶119

On a comparison of the complaints with the said FIR, it is seen that the substance of the complaints in all the cases is more or less identical. At this stage, it may be mentioned that in Criminal Petition No.3306 of 2073 cognizance was taken on 10.01.2013; cognizance

¶120

w,J

¶121

:iL4i:

¶122

order was passed on 29.04.2014 in Criminal petition No. 7084 of 2014, and likewise in Criminal petition No. 1315 of 2015 cognizance was taken on 22.OS.2OLS.

¶123

2L. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on due consideration, the question which falls for consideration is whether the subsequent complaints lodged after Crime No. 1 ol 2013 at Nirmal police Station (now S.C.No.3 ol 2013 on the file of Court ol First Special Sessions Court lor Trial of MPs and MLAs at Hyderabad) would be permissible in lau,? If not, what would be the consequence or fate of such criminal complaints?

¶124

The heading of 'section 186' of Cr.P.C. is : High Court to decide, in case of doubt, district where inquiry or trial shall take place. Section 186 of Cr. P. C. states that '"r,here two or more courts have taken cognizance of the same offence and a question

¶125

::15::

¶126

UB,J

¶127

arises as to which of them ought to inquire into or try that offencc, then the question shall be decided bv that High Court, if the Courts are subordinatc to the same High Court; and if the Courts are not subordinate to the same High Court, by the High Court within the local limits of whose appellate criminal jurisdiction the proceedings first commenced. Thereafter, ali other proceedings 1n respect of that offence sha-ll be discontinued.

¶128

Coming to Section 2lO of Cr.P.C., it lays down the procedure to be followed when there is a complaint case and police investigation in respect of the same olTence. As per Sub-Section (1) when in a case instituted otherwise thar-r on a police report i.e., a complaint case, it is made to appear to the Magistrate, that an investigation by the police is in progress in relation to the offence which is the subject-matter of

¶129

::16:3

¶130

UB,J

¶131

the inquiry or trial heid by him, the Magistrate shall stay the proceedings of such inquiry or trral and czrll for a report on the matter from the police officer conducting the investigation.

¶132

In T.T. Antony's case (2 supra) Supreme Court 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 sarne occurrence, giving rise to one or more cognizable offences. It was held that only the information about the commission of cognizable offence(s), which is first entered in the Station House Diary by the Officer In-Charge of the Police Station, can be regarded as First Information Report under Section 154 of the Cr.P.C.; on subsequent inlbrmation, the same offence will be covered bv Section 162 of the

¶133

Cr. P.C. It was held as foliows:

¶134

¶135

iiLT|i

¶136

UB,J .A?-23O5. 3306, 1661 2Ot3 6 cll?,od42o1.6)31s2ols

¶137

"A jwt balance between the fundamental rights of the citizens under Articles 19 and 2l of the Constitution and the expansive power of the police to investigate a cognizable offence has to be stuck by the Court. There cannot be ony controversy that sub-section (8) of Section 173 Cr.P.C. empowers the police to make further investigation, obtain .further evidence (both oral and clotuttrenlort,) and.forwarcl a Jio'ther report or reports to tlr lt4agistrote. ln.\orangs'cuse (supra) it v,as, hotever, observed tlnt it tr;ould be oppropriate to c'onduct fiu'ther itn'estigation ttitlt tlte perntission of the Court. Hottcver. lhe stteeping pow-er of investigation cloes not wdt.rant subjecting a citizen eaclt tinte to fresh investigotion bv the police in respect of the same incident, giving rise to one or more cognizable offences, consequent upon filing of successive FIRs whether before or after filing the final report under Section 17j(2) Cr.P.C. h would cleorly be beyond the purview of Sections 154 and 156 Cr.P.C. nay, a case of abuse of the statutory power of investigation in a given case. In our view a case of fresh investigation based on the second or successive FIRs, not being a counter case, .filed in connection with the same or connected cognizable oJfence alleged to have been tommitted in thc course of the same lransaction and in re:specl <tf lhic'h pursttunt to the first FIR t,ither investigation is underwul, or .linal report utcler Section

¶138

::18::

¶139

UB,J ..Lp XOs,3306, a661 2Ot3 a

¶140

173(2) has been forwarded to the Magistrdte, moy be afit case for exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.p.C. or under Article 226/227 ofthe Constitution. "

¶141

From the above, it is clearly discernable that according to the Supreme Court, the sweeping power of investigation does not warrant subjecting a citizen ln each time to a fresh investigation by the police respect ol the same incident, giving rise to one or more cognizable offences, consequent upon filing of successive FIRs, whether before or after filing the linal report under Section 173(21 Cr.P.C. The Courr observed that case ol lresh ir-ivestigation based on the consequent or successive FIRs not being counter-case, liled in connection with the same or connected cognizable offence alleged to have been committed in the course of the same transaction and in respect of which pursuant to the first FIR either investigation is under way or final report under Section 173 (2) has

¶142

::19::

¶143

UB,J

¶144

been foru'arded to the Magistrate, mav be a fit case for exercise of power under Section 482 Cr. P.C., or under Articles 226 1227 of the Constitution. In the circumstances of that case, it was held that registration of the second FIR was not valid and consequently investigation made pursuant thereto was of no legal consequences. Those were accordingly quashed.

¶145

This 1egal position <sup>/as reiterated by the Supreme Court in Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah's case (3 supra) . Relerring to the decision ol T.T. Antony's case (2 supra), Supreme Court held that a second FIR in respect of an offence or a different offence committed in the course of same transaction is not only impermissible but it violates Article 21 of the Constitution as well. In the facts of that case, Supreme Court held that filing of second FIR and fresh

¶146

i.2Oi:

¶147

UB,J c.lo2305.3306.46612013a .d,,o'12o'.e131s.2o's

¶148

charge sheet was violation of fundamentai rights under Articles 14, 20 and 21 of the Constitution since the same relief is sought against an alleged olfence in respect of which an FIR had alreadv been filed and thc Court has taken cogni zance.

¶149

At this stage, it may also be mentioned that against registration of multiple FIRs and multipie complaints, on account of same public speech given by the petitioner which is subject matter of Crime No.1 of 2013 registered before Nirmal Police Station, petitioner had filed a Writ Petition before this Court being Writ Petition No.824 of 2013 which was disposed of on 19.O7.2O13 [since reported 1n [2013 (6) ALT 101] (3 supra)1. On the question of the tesr to be applied to determine whether or not the two FIRs under consideration relate to the same or dillerent incidents. this Court held as follows:

¶150

ii2l:i

¶151

UB,J

¶152

"40. Let us now briefly refer to the tests which should, ordinarily, be applied to determine whether or not tlle Mo FlRs under consideration relate to the same inc ide nt/trunsacl ion. The low recognizes a comnton trial or a comtnon I.-lR being regislered for one series oJ'acts so connected together us tr.t./brm the sante trunsoLtiotl as cotltenlplated untler Section 220 C'r.P.C. The expre.ssion '.;umc tran.rac'tion'../ron r1.s |er.r. tlottre. i.\ incapctble of tttrtt de_littitiott. /.,lnju Chau harl, v. Stuta oJ L'ttor Pruleshj, Mohan Buitho r,. Slole o/ Bihorr.1. 'the distittctiott between two FlRs relating to the same incident, and fiuo FIRs relating to dffirent incidents or occurrences of the same incident, should be carefully examined. (Babubhai v. Stote of GujaratT). The merits of each case must be considered to determine whether a subsequently registered FIR is a second FIR relating to the same incident or offence or is based upon distinct and dffirent facts and whether its scope of inquiry is entirely dffirent or not. It will not be appropriate for the Court to lay down one straight jacket formula uniformlv applicable to all cases. This will always be a mixed question of lay) utttl ./itct depending on the merits of a given ccrse. (Anj u L'ltuudlnr.t [5 supraJl. Tlrc test, Io cletermine *,hether ttto FlRs cort be perntitted to exist. is tt.hether the fiyo

¶153

¶154

,; (2013) Cri.L,J.776 (SC) t'2oor 12) ALr (Crl.) 26 (Sc)={2o01) 4 ScC 3s0 ; l2o)0) t2 scc 254

..4.)..

) I

UB,J

incidents are identic'aL or not. (Runt Lol .'orctng t,. Srure (Delhi Admn1)."

¶159

This Court thereafter dealt with the aspect relating to registration of two FIRs in two different police stations by two different complainants against the same accused for the same incident. This Court analyzed various decisions of the Supreme Court as well as of different High Courts and came to the conclusion that complaint lodged in police station uas quashed on the ground that anoll-rer complaint \,4 ri already lodged in a dillerent police station for the samc offence, or the Court in the other place had alreadl' taken cognizance ol the offence. Finally, this Court concluded as foliows:

¶160

"70. Multiple investigotions by multiple police stations could well result in an accused, who can eventually be tried and punished for the said incident only once, being subjected to repeated atests by dffirent

¶161

¶162

8 AIR 1979 SC 1791

¶163

ii23ii

¶164

W,J

¶165

investigating ofiicers, and being called upon to appear before dffirent police fficers attached to different police stations, in connection with the investigation of the same offence. lYhile the power to arrest an accused is conferred on the investigating officer under Section 4l Cr.P.C, construing the provisions of the Cr.P.C. as enabling dffirent investigating ofiicers attached to different police stations to, one after the other, arrest the same personfor the same incident/occurrence would not be a foir or a just procedure. The pelitioner's fundamental rights, under Article 2I of tlte Constitution of India, would be riolated qs he woulcl not onb) Jace the threat of imminent and tlumer()us urrests b.t, di/Jbrent investigating ugencie:; ./or tlte sante inc ide ntt ot'currenc'e, but his libertv woulcl also be re.stricted on ltis being required to appear bejbre difiirt,ttt i)t,(sti?olitls ugencies t,onduc.titt.c ltttr.ollel i t tt'a s t i grr I i o tt i tl t o t h? .\ a t ne i rrc i de n t.^"

¶166

In Arnab Ranjan Goswami vs. Union of Indias, petitioner had complained that following broadcast on Republic Bharat TV on 2l .O4.2O2O, muttiple FIRs and criminal complaints were lodged against him, not only in the State of Maharashtra but in different States and

¶167

,(2020) l4 scc 12

¶168

..24..

¶169

W,J c?tp 2305. 3306, a65r_2o t3 & .tq zoe1jo14 a. 13 ts_2o1s

¶170

Union Territories. The first FIR was lodged at Sadar Police Station, Nagpur City, Maharashtra whereafter as many as 14 other FIRs and complaints were lodged in different places. Delineating the aspect of lodging of subsequent FIRs, Supreme Court on an analvsis of various judgments including in T.T. Antony,s case (2 supra) and in Upkar Singh vs. Ved Prakashr0, held that there can be no second FIR when the information concerns the same cognizable offence alleged in the Iirst FIR or the same occurrence or the incident which gives rise to one or more cognizable offences. Barring situations in which a counter-case is filed, a fresh investigation or a second FIR on the basis of the same or connected cognizable offence would constitute an abuse of the statutory power of investigation and may be a fit case for exercise of power either under Section 1482 Cr.P.C. or under Articles 226 1227 of the

¶171

1o(2004) 13 SCC 292

¶172

!:25::

¶173

UB,J ..1"2305,3306..65,.20138

¶174

Constitution. Hor,r,ever, it has been clarified that when there are rival versions in respect of the same episode, they would normallv take the shape of two different FIRs and investigation can be carried out under both of them by the same investigating agency. In the facts of that case, it was found that all the FIRs or compiaints lodged in diverse jurisdiction arose out of one and the same incident, i.e., broadcast by the petitioner 1n Republic Bharat on 2I.O4.2O2O. Therefore, all the other FlRs/complaints were quashed leaving open the investigation caried out by Sadar Police Station, Nagpur City which was however transferred to NM Joshi Marg Police Station in N{umbai.

¶175

The above principle finds reiteration in the case of Amish Devgan (4 supra). Referring to and reiterating the principle of la'"r' laid dorvn in Arnab Ranjan

¶176

:i26ii

¶177

W,J ..19 2J0s. )306,.65t 20r3 n

¶178

Goswami (5 supra), Supreme Court held that ordinarily first FIR, i.e. FIR registered first in point ol time, should be treated as the main FIR and others as statements under Section 162 ol the Cr.P.C. However, in exceptional cases and for good reasons, it will be open to the High Court or to the Supreme Court, as the case may be, to treat the subsequently registered FIR as the principle FIR. However, this clarification also does not dilute the main proposition that there cannot be multiple FIRs and consequently muitiple investigations arising out of one cognizable offence. Notwithstanding the clarification given in the lacts of that case, Supreme Court ultimately accepted the prayer of the petitioner and directed transfer ol FIRs to Dargah Police Station, Ajmer, Rajasthan, where the first FIR was registered.

¶179

¶180

) )

¶181

w,J qLP2305'3306'466,20]3e ..1'.70312b14&,31s2415

¶182

Thus, in view of the above discussion, this Court has no hesitation that FIR lodged in Crime No.l of 2013 before the Nirmal Police Station in which chargesheet has now been filed by the police and committed to the Court ol First Special Sessions Court for Trial of MPs and MLAs at Hyderabad, wherein it has been renumbered as S.C.No.3 of 2013 is the lirst FIR. the trial of u,hi<:h should be continued and taken to its logical conclusion. Insofar the other complaints are concerned, those would stand discontinued. However, statements of the compiainants recorded in those cases may be forwarded to the Court of First Special Sessions Court for Triai of MPs and MLAs and form part of the record on the basis of which learned trial Court may consider treating the said complainants as witnesses in the proceedings of S.C. No.3 of 20i3.

¶183

,:28::

¶184

w,J .lll,o'.2o1.6!31s20!s

¶185