APHC010575392024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] MONDAY,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9286/2024 Between: 1. RAMANAIDU CHEEPURUPALLI,, S/O. SIMHACHALAM AGED 57 YEARS, R/O. H. NO. 21-09-13E MADHARANAGAR VIJAYAWADA 2. BUSI VIJAYA KUMARI, W/O. SUDHAKAR BABU AGED 48 YEARS R/O. H. NO. 31-24-189 KATURIVARI VEEDHI MACHAVARAM VIJAYAWADA ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THROUGH SHO, MACHAVARAM P.S REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH. AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. BUSI PRABHAKAR BABU, S/O. LATE ANJANEYULU, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC- RAILWAY EMPLOYEE, R/O. D. NO. 31-24-189, KATURIVARI STREET, MACHAVARAM TOWN OF VIJAYAWADA CITY, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): to Quash the proceedings in FIR No. 170 of 2022 of Machavaram Police Station, Vijayawada City, Krishna District and pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. D.RAVINDRA NADH REDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 2 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.9286 of 2024 Dated 20.04.2026 1. KARTHIKEYAN BALA SUNDARA MANIKANTAN 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity, “the Cr.P.C.”)/Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, “the BNSS”), seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Crime No. 170 of 2022 of Machavaram Police Station, Vijayawada, Krishna District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 328 and 115 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity, “the I.P.C.”). 2. On 11.03.2022, one Boosi Akkamma lodged a report, which was registered as a case in Crime No. 99 of 2022 under the head “man missing.” The missing person was Boosi Sudhakar, who is the son of the said Boosi Akkamma. 3. On 07.05.2022, Respondent No. 2, namely Boosi Prabhakar Babu, lodged a complaint, which was registered as a case in Crime No. 170 of 2022 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 328 and 115 read with Section 120-B of the I.P.C. 4. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the offences alleged in the two FIRs relate to the very same incident and transaction. Placing 3 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.9286 of 2024 Dated 20.04.2026 reliance on the judgment of the High Court of Telangana in Akbaruddin Owaisi v. State of Andhra Pradesh1 which in turn relied upon the decision in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala2, it is submitted that registration of a second or subsequent FIRs in respect of the same transactions, whether for the same or different offences, is impermissible and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 5. It is opposite to refer to the judgment of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in T.T Antony 2nd supra wherein at para Nos.27, 28 and 35 it is held that the Court held that while the police have power under Section 173(8) of „the Cr.P.C.,‟ to conduct further investigation, registering a second or successive FIR in respect of the same incident or transaction is impermissible and amounts to an abuse of the investigative process. Any additional material or findings ought to be incorporated only by seeking leave of the Court and filing a further report in the original FIR, and not by initiating a fresh investigation through a new FIR. Accordingly, the second FIR and the investigation pursuant thereto were quashed, while leaving it open to the investigating agency to seek permission for further investigation in the earlier cases in accordance with law. 6. It is further relevant to mentioned that the judgment of Hon‟ble Apex Court in Arnab Ranjan Goswami v. Union of India3 wherein at para Nos.59 and 61.5 it is held that the Court noted that multiple FIRs and complaints were filed against the Petitioner across several States and Union Territories in 1MANU/TL/2544/2022 2 (2001) 6 SCC 181 3 2020 SCC OnLine SC 462 4 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.9286 of 2024 Dated 20.04.2026 respect of the same cause of action. By an interim order dated 24.04.2020, the Hon‟ble Apext Court stayed further proceedings in all FIRs and complaints except the one originally registered at Police Station Sadar, Nagpur, which was later transferred to N.M. Joshi Marg Police Station, Mumbai. Accepting the submission of the learned Senior Counsel, the Court held that fairness in the administration of criminal justice warranted exercise of jurisdiction to prevent multiplicity of proceedings. Relying on the law laid down in T.T. Antony supra, the Hon‟ble Apex Court reiterated that successive FIRs or complaints founded on the same transaction are not maintainable. Consequently, all FIRs and complaints enumerated, except the one under investigation at Mumbai, were quashed. 7. In Babubhai v. State of Gujarat4, at paragraph No.14, the Hon‟ble Apex Court, relying on T.T. Antony supra, reiterated that the registration of a second FIR in respect of the same cognizable offence or the same occurrence is legally impermissible, holding that all subsequent information relating to the same incident must be treated only as statements under Section 162 of „the Cr.P.C.‟ The Hon‟ble Apex Court emphasized that the investigating agency is obliged to proceed solely on the basis of the first information recorded under Section 158 of „the Cr.P.C.,‟ and to investigate not only the offences reported therein but also any connected offences arising from the same transaction, culminating in a report under Section 173 of „the Cr.P.C.‟ Even after 4(2010) 12 SCC 254 5 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.9286 of 2024 Dated 20.04.2026 submission of the report under Section 173(2) of „the Cr.P.C.,‟ any further material pertaining to the same incident may be investigated only by undertaking further investigation under Section 173(8) of „the Cr.P.C.,‟ preferably with leave of the Court. The Hon‟ble Apex Court clarified that receipt of multiple pieces of information relating to the same incident does not justify registration of additional FIRs, as such subsequent information cannot constitute fresh FIRs and doing so would offend the scheme of „the Cr.P.C.‟ 8. In Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash5, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court clarified that its earlier decision in T.T. Antony supra, does not preclude the registration of a counter-case. The Court explained that T.T. Antony supra merely prohibits the lodging of any subsequent complaint by the same complainant or others against the same accused relating to the same incident once investigation has commenced, as such later complaints would constitute an impermissible improvement upon the facts of the original complaint, thereby attracting the bar under Section 162 of „the Cr.P.C.‟ This embargo, however, was held to be inapplicable to a counter-complaint filed by the accused in the first incident, or on his behalf, presenting a different version of the occurrence; such a counter-case remains legally maintainable as it represents an independent narrative and not a reiteration or embellishment of the initial allegations. 5(2004) 13 SCC 292 6 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.9286 of 2024 Dated 20.04.2026 9. In C. Muniappan v. State of T.N6, the Hon‟ble Apex Court held at paragraph No.37 that the contention that two crimes, bearing Nos.188 and 190 of 2000, could not be clubbed together was devoid of merit, as the totality of the circumstances and the sequence of events clearly established that the second incident was merely a consequential fallout of the first. The Court observed that, upon considering the evidence of the drivers, conductors, and cleaners of the vehicles involved in the first occurrence, along with the testimony of the Village Administrative Officer (PW-87), it became evident that the damage caused to public transport vehicles and the subsequent burning of the University bus formed parts of a single continuous incident. Thus, the mere lodging of two separate complaints did not preclude the clubbing of the cases or the filing of a consolidated charge-sheet. 10. In Chirra Shivraj v. State of A.P 7 , the Hon‟ble Supreme Court reiterated at paragraph No.14 that the concept of a First Information Report necessarily connotes the earliest information received by the police relating to the commission of an offence, and that no second FIR can be registered in respect of the very same incident or occurrence. The Court held that any subsequent information received by the investigating agency, even if it supplements or elaborates upon the earlier facts, must be treated only as material in continuation of the original FIR, since all such information is 6(2010) 9 SCC 567 7(2010) 14 SCC 444 7 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.9286 of 2024 Dated 20.04.2026 inherently in furtherance of the first report and cannot give rise to a fresh FIR concerning the same offence or event. 11. In Anju Chaudhary v. State of U.P 8, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court emphasized the intrinsic legal significance of a First Information Report, describing it as the foundational document that sets the criminal law machinery in motion and forms the basis of the prosecution‟s case. The Court observed that while multiple pieces of information may be furnished to the officer-in-charge concerning the same incident involving one or more cognizable offences, such subsequent information constitutes statements under Section 162 of „the Cr.P.C.,‟ and does not justify the registration of additional FIRs. For determining the legality of more than one FIR, the Court held that the “test of sameness” must be applied to ascertain whether the FIRs relate to the very same incident or occurrence, or whether they pertain to distinct incidents or different parts of a larger transaction. If both FIRs satisfy the test of sameness, the latter would be liable to be quashed; however, where the subsequent FIR discloses a distinct version or pertains to an entirely separate incident, its registration is legally permissible, consistent with the principles earlier enunciated in Babubhai supra. 12. In Kashi Nath Choudhary v. State of Bihar9, the High Court of Patna, applying the principles laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in T.T. Antonysupra, held that the investigation pursuant to the second FIR, 8(2013) 6 SCC 384 92007 SCC OnLine Pat 116 8 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.9286 of 2024 Dated 20.04.2026 Begusarai P.S. Case No.274 of 2004, was unwarranted, as it pertained to the very same incident and facts forming the subject matter of the earlier FIR. The Court, however, clarified that this bar does not curtail the power of the investigating agency to conduct further investigation or to proceed against any additional persons whose involvement may surface during investigation or trial. Consequently, the order of cognizance in Begusarai Town P.S. Case No.274 of 2004 was quashed insofar as it related to the petitioner, subject to the observations made therein. 13. In Subhash Narayan Koli v. State of Maharashtra10, the High Court of Bombay held that a second FIR cannot be registered in respect of the same cognizable offence or the same incident. The Court noted that, on the facts of the case, the applicants had already been shown as accused in Crime Register No.56 of 2006 at Bajarpeth Police Station for the recovery of contraband from premises at Jainabad, Walmikinagar, Jalgaon, and yet, for the very same seizure, they were again arrayed as accused in Crime Register No.19 of 2006 at Shanipeth Police Station, Jalgaon. The Court held that such duplication of FIRs for the same occurrence is impermissible in law. 14. In the instant case, Crime No. 99 of 2022 was registered under the head “man missing.” While the said complaint was still pending, Respondent No. 2 submitted another complaint to the Station House Officer, Machavaram Police Station. The Station House Officer ought to have treated the said 102010 SCC OnLine Bom 1164 9 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.9286 of 2024 Dated 20.04.2026 complaint as a statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. Instead of doing so, and contrary to the dictum laid down by the settled jurisprudence of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in T.T. Antony supra, Babubhai supra, Arnab Ranjan Goswami supra, and as reaffirmed in Chirra Shivraj supra and Anju Chaudhary supra unequivocally establishes that successive FIRs arising from the same incident or transaction are impermissible in law, as they offend the scheme of „the Cr.P.C.,‟ and violate Article 21 of the Constitution. The Hon‟ble Apex Court has consistently held that subsequent complaints must be treated only as statements under Section 162 of „the Cr.P.C.,‟ and any further investigation must be undertaken under Section 173(8) of „the Cr.P.C.,‟ with leave of the Court, rather than by initiating fresh FIRs. The High Courts, including those of Telangana, Patna, and Bombay, have applied these principles to quash duplicative FIRs, emphasizing the “test of sameness” as the touchstone. Applying these precedents registering another FIR based on the complaint of Respondent No. 2, i.e., Crime No. 170 of 2022. Therefore, the subsequent FIR in Crime No. 170 of 2022 is liable to be quashed and the complaint therein is to be treated as a statement under Section 161 of „the Cr.P.C.,‟ in Crime No. 99 of 2022. 15. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of by quashing Crime No. 170 of 2022 of Machavaram Police Station. The Investigating Officer is directed to treat the complaint of Respondent No. 2 as a statement under Section 161 of „the Cr.P.C.,‟ and to conduct the investigation in Crime No. 99 10 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.9286 of 2024 Dated 20.04.2026 of 2022. The Investigating Officer shall file appropriate proceedings before the learned jurisdictional Magistrate within a reasonable period and submit a report to that effect to the Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada. All the material collected, documents gathered, and investigation conducted in Crime No. 170 of 2022 shall be treated as part of the record in Crime No. 99 of 2022 for all practical purposes. 16. With the above observations and directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 20.04.2026 KMS 11 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.9286 of 2024 Dated 20.04.2026 163 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.9286 of 2024 Date:20.04.2026 KMS