APHC010148292026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] TUESDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 7809/2026 Between: SARVESWARUDU VISHNUBHOTIA ALIAS ESWAR KARTHIKEYA,, S/O. V RAMARAO, AGE. 48 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. BRAHMINS STREET, DEVARAPALLI, WEST GODAVARI, ANDHRA PRADESH .. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.522238. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, POLICE HEAD QUTERS MANGALAGIRI , GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH,522302. 3. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KURNOOL III TOWN P.S, KURNOOL DISTRICT, 518003. 4. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, P.S. CHITTOOR II TOWN, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, 517002. 5. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, P.S. SANTHAKAVITI, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT, 532123. 6. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, P.S. RAJAMPETA, ANNAMAIAH DISTRICT, 516115. 7. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, P.S. TENALI III TOWN, GUNTUR 2 Dr. YLR, J W.P.No.7809 of 2026 Dated 07.04.2026 DISTRICT, 522201. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: BARRI PARTHASARADHI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER: The Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “…to issue an order direction or writ particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus to club all FIRs registered against the Petitioner including but not limited to Crime No 21 of 2026 on the file of the Rajampeta Police Station Crime No 108 of 2025 on the file of Tenali III Town Police Station Crime No 3 of 2026 on the file of Santhakaviti Police Station Vizianagaram District Crime No 2 of 2026 on the file of Chittoor II Town Police Station Chittoor District Crime No 60 of 2026 on the file of Kurnool III Town Police Station and any other FIRs registered across the State of Andhra Pradesh that arise out of the same tweet or series of tweet from X Account with Crime No 21 of 2026 on the file of the Rajampeta Police Stationand to treat all further complaints/FIRs based on the same subject matter as part of the investigation in Crime No 21 of 2026 on the file of the Rajampeta Police Station and investigate them jointly by appointing a Common Investigating Officer and Consequently direct the Respondents not to take any coercive steps including the fresh arrest warrants or summons against the Petitioner in relation to such similar subject matter FIRs and to pass….” 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader. 3. Mr. B.Parthasaradhi Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that, in respect of one alleged offence, the police initially registered a case in Crime No.108 of 2025 on the file of Tenali III Town Police Station, 3 Dr. YLR, J W.P.No.7809 of 2026 Dated 07.04.2026 Guntur District, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 504, 505, 509, and 153-A of ‘the IPC’ and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (for brevity ‘the Act’). It was alleged in the said complaint that the petitioner had indulged in certain comments against constitutional dignitaries. Subsequently, several persons lodged complaints with regard to the same allegations against the petitioner in different police stations, namely: 1. Crime No.2 of 2026 on the file of Chittoor II Town Police Station, Chittoor District, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 196(1)(a), 79, 352, and 353(2) of ‘the BNS’ and Section 67 of ‘the Act’; 2. Crime No.3 of 2026 on the file of Santhakaviti Police Station, Vizianagaram District for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 356(2),196(1)(a),352, and 353(2) of ‘the BNS’ and Section 67 of ‘the Act’; 3. Cr. No.21 of 2026 on the file of Rajampeta Police Station, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 353(1), 352, 351(1), and 296 of ‘the BNS’ and Section 67 of ‘the Act’; 4. Cr. No.60 of 2026 on the file of Kurnool III Town Police Station, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 196(1), 197(1), 299, and 302 of ‘the BNS’ and Section 66 read with Section 43 of ‘the Act’. 4. This Court, in W.P.No.35896 of 2025, vide order dated 06.02.2026, and in W.P.No.20132 of 2025, vide order dated 31.01.2026, ordered the 4 Dr. YLR, J W.P.No.7809 of 2026 Dated 07.04.2026 clubbing and transfer of the FIRs to the police station where the first FIR was registered and, accordingly, disposed of the Writ Petitions. 5. In this regard, it is apposite to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala1, wherein at paragraph Nos.27 and 28 it was held as under: 27. A just balance between the fundamental rights of the citizens under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution and the expansive power of the police to investigate a cognizable offence has to be struck by the court. There cannot be any controversy that sub-section (8) of Section 173 CrPC empowers the police to make further investigation, obtain further evidence (both oral and documentary) and forward a further report or reports to the Magistrate. In Narang case [(1979) 2 SCC 322 : 1979 SCC (Cri) 479] it was, however, observed that it would be appropriate to conduct further investigation with the permission of the court. However, the sweeping power of investigation does not warrant subjecting a citizen each time to fresh investigation by 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 173(2) CrPC. It would clearly be beyond the purview of Sections 154 and 156 CrPC, 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 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 been forwarded to the Magistrate, may be a fit case for exercise of power under Section 482 CrPC or under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution. 28. Coming to the facts of this case, which are not free from political overtones, the incident which gave rise to registering of FIRs, took place on 25-11-1994 on the occasion of the visit of the Minister to Alakkandy Complex at Kuthuparamba, Tellicherry Road (Kannur District) for inauguration of the evening branch of Cooperative Urban Bank. The events that developed there led to firing by the police at two places: (i) in the vicinity of the Town Hall for which FIR was lodged and Crime No. 353 of 1994 under Sections 143, 147, 148, 332, 353, 324 and 307 read with Section 149 IPC, Section 3(2)(e) of the PDPP Act and Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, was registered, and (ii) in the vicinity of Police Station Kuthuparamba in respect of which FIR was filed and Crime No. 354 of 1994 of Kuthuparamba Police Station under Sections 143, 147, 148, 307 and 427 read with Section 149 IPC and Section 3(2)(e) of the PDPP Act was registered. While the investigations on the basis of the said FIRs were pending, the report of Mr K. Padmanabhan Nair, Inquiry Commission, was submitted to the Government. On 30-6-1997, the Additional Chief Secretary wrote to the Director General of Police that the Government had accepted the report of the Commission and directed that legal action be taken against those responsible on the basis of the findings of the Commission. On 2-7-1997, the Director General 1 (2001) 6 SCC 181 5 Dr. YLR, J W.P.No.7809 of 2026 Dated 07.04.2026 of Police, however, wrote to the Inspector General of Police (North Zone) to register a case immediately and have the same investigated by a senior officer. Two days thereafter, the Inspector General of Police added his own remarks — “firing without justification by which people were killed amounted to murder” — and ordered the Station House Officer to register a case under the appropriate sections and forward the investigation copy of the FIR to the Deputy Inspector General of Police (North Zone) for urgent personal investigation. On the date when the Additional Chief Secretary wrote to the Director General of Police, the investigations initiated in the said two crimes relating to the same incident were in progress. The investigating agency should have taken advantage of the report of the Commission for a proper further investigation into the case. On the facts which might come to light during investigation, if necessary, the investigating agency should have altered the offences under appropriate section of the relevant Acts and concluded the investigations. In view of the orders of the Director General of Police to register a case and on the further direction of the Inspector General of Police, the officer in charge of the police station registered Crime No. 268 of 1997 of Kuthuparamba Police Station. A comparison and critical examination of the FIRs in Crimes Nos. 353 and 354 of 1994 on one hand and FIR in Crime No. 268 of 1997 on the other, discloses that the date and place of occurrence are the same; there is alluding reference to the deaths caused due to police firing in the FIRs in Crimes Nos. 353 and 354 of 1994. In any event, that fact was evident on the scene of occurrence. The narration of events, which we need not repeat here, is almost the same. The additional averments in Crime No. 268 of 1997 are based on the findings in the report of the Commission. Having regard to the test laid down by this Court in Narang case [(1979) 2 SCC 322 : 1979 SCC (Cri) 479] with which we are in respectful agreement, we find that in truth and substance the essence of the offence in Crimes Nos. 353 and 354 of 1994 is the same as in Crime No. 268 of 1997 of Kuthuparamba Police Station. In our view, in sending information in regard to the same incident, duly enclosing a copy of the report of the Commission of Inquiry to the Inspector General of Police for appropriate action, the Additional Chief Secretary adopted the right course of action. Perhaps the endorsement of the Inspector General of Police for registration of a case misled the subordinate police officers and the said letter with regard to the incident of 25-11-1994 at Kuthuparamba was registered again under Section 154 CrPC which would be the second FIR and, in our opinion, on the facts of this case, was irregular and a fresh investigation by the investigating agency was unwarranted and illegal. On that date the investigations in the earlier cases (Crimes Nos. 353 and 354 of 1994) were pending. The correct course of action should have been to take note of the findings and the contents of the report, streamline the investigation to ascertain the true and correct facts, collect the evidence in support thereof, form an opinion under Sections 169 and 170 CrPC, as the case may be, and forward the report/reports under Section 173(2) or Section 173(8) CrPC to the Magistrate concerned. The course adopted in this case, namely, the registration of the information as the second FIR in regard to the same incident and making a fresh investigation is not permissible under the scheme of the provisions of CrPC as pointed out above, therefore, the investigation undertaken and the report thereof cannot but be invalid. We have, therefore, no option except to quash the same leaving it open to the investigating agency to seek permission in Crime No. 353 or 354 of 1994 of the Magistrate to make further investigation, forward further report or reports and thus proceed in accordance with law. 6 Dr. YLR, J W.P.No.7809 of 2026 Dated 07.04.2026 6. In view of the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in T.T. Antony supra, if the alleged offences are similar or common in nature and the transaction is also more or less connected to the first case registered at an earlier point of time, the subsequent FIRs shall be treated as statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C.,’)/ Section 180 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’). 7. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, the FIRs in Crime No.02 of 2026 of Chittoor II Town Police Station, Crime No. 03 of 2026 of Santhakaviti Police Station, Crime No.21 of 2026 of Rajampeta Police Station and Crime No.60 of 2026 of Kurnool III Town Police Station are hereby quashed, transferred and clubbed with the Cr.No.108 of 2025 on the file of Tenali III Town Police Station, Guntur District, on the point of jurisdiction by treating all the above mentioned complaints of the informants as statements recorded under Section 161 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’/Section 180 of ‘the BNSS’. 8. With the above observations and directions, the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 07.04.2026 RSI 7 Dr. YLR, J W.P.No.7809 of 2026 Dated 07.04.2026 225 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 7809 of 2026 Date:07.04.2026 RSI