ORDER : This Criminal Petition is filed under Section - 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to quash the proceedings in Crime No.488 of 2020 of Jubilee Hills Police Station, Hyderabad Commissionerate, along with Look-Out Circular / Interpol Notices initially. 2. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that during pendency of the present Criminal Petition, the police have completed investigation and filed charge sheet and the same was taken on file vide C.C. No.5893 of 2021 by the learned XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. Pursuant to the same, the petitioners herein have filed I.A. No.2 of 2021 to amend the prayer to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.5893 of 2021, and the said I.A. was allowed by this Court vide order dated 01.06.2021. 3. The petitioners herein are accused Nos.1 and 2 in the aforesaid C.C. No.5893 of 2021. The offences alleged against them are under Sections - 498A and 506 of IPC, Sections - 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and Section - 30 of the Arms Act, 1959. 4. Heard Mr. Dil Jit Singh Ahluwalia, learned counsel representing Ms. Avula Krishnaveni, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. K. Vivek Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. T. Jayanth Jaya Soorya, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 - State. 5. Respondent No.2 -de facto complainant and petitioner No.1 - Accused No.1 are wife and husband while accused No.2 is mother of accused No.1. The marriage to both the parties is a second marriage. Respondent No.2 earlier lodged a complaint on 14.11.2019 against the petitioners herein and Mrs. Smita Reddy, sister-in-law of accused No.1, and the same was registered as Crime No.742 of 2019 for the offences under Sections - 406, 420 and 120-B of IPC by Jubilee Hills Police Station, Hyderabad. Subsequently, respondent No.2 filed the present complaint with the very same police station on 07.10.2020 against the petitioners herein and the same was registered as Crime No.488 of 2020 for the offences under Sections - 498A and 506 of IPC, Sections - 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and Section - 30 of the Arms Act, 1959. Subsequently, respondent No.2 filed the present complaint with the very same police station on 07.10.2020 against the petitioners herein and the same was registered as Crime No.488 of 2020 for the offences under Sections - 498A and 506 of IPC, Sections - 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and Section - 30 of the Arms Act, 1959. As stated above, after completion of investigation, the police have laid charge sheet in Crime No.488 of 2020 against the petitioners herein for the aforesaid offences and the same was taken on file vide C.C. No.5893 of 2021. 6. The petitioners herein filed the present criminal petition to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.5893 of 2021 (arising out of Crime No.488 of 2020 of Jubilee Hills Police Station), mainly on the ground that registration of Second First Information Report (FIR) on the very same allegations between the very same parties is impermissible and it is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Whereas, respondent No.2 is claiming that the allegations levelled by her in both the complaints are different and distinct, therefore, there is no error in registering the second FIR. 7. Whereas, respondent No.2 is claiming that the allegations levelled by her in both the complaints are different and distinct, therefore, there is no error in registering the second FIR. 7. In view of the above said rival contentions, it is trite to refer to the allegations made by respondent No.2 herein in both the complaints i.e., Crime Nos.742 of 2019 and 488 of 2020, in brief, which are as under: Crime No.742 of 2019 (1st FIR) Crime No.488 of 2020 (2nd FIR) R-2 - Sumana Paruchuri, de facto complainant, a successful business woman, hails from a highly respectable family She is wife of accused No.1; She possessed with sufficient financial resources; She was the original and absolute owner of two valuable properties mentioned in the complaint having purchased from out of her hard-earned money when she was in USA up to 2002; She came back to India and set up her family in a rented portion belongs to A1 She got disputes with her first husband - Paruchuri Srinivas; She has obtained decree of divorce on 28.03.2006 in FCOP No.220 of 2006; Later, she got married A1 The petitioners herein in active connivance with late Jakka Venkatrami Reddy, brother of A1 and husband of Smita Reddy (A3) and taking advantage of her situation hatched a plan to knock away her properties and thereby cheated her; The modes operandi adopted by A1 to A3 is also specifically mentioned; Her both children were minors at that particular point of time; Accused requested her to transfer her properties in their names with an assurance that they would re-convey the same after concluding the divorce and custody proceedings pending between her and her first husband; Believing said version, she transferred her properties by executing sale deeds mentioning therein that accused are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the properties; She also handed over original sale deeds to the accused; A1 did not re-convey the properties in her name as promised by him; To win her trust, A1 instructed her to execute a Gift Deed in his favour with regard to property in Sy.No.41 of Pattandur Agrahara Village, K.R. Puram, Hobli, Bangalore and, accordingly, she executed a registered gift deed dated 16.04.2007 in his favour. A-1 to A3 with a view to strengthen her trust, voluntarily, handed over the original copy of gift deed to her and she continued to be the owner and possessor of the said property for all practical purposes; Thus, A1 to A3 had developed a mutual relationship of trust and confidence with her family; With the blessings of elders, A1 and R2 got married on 26.06.2011; A1 assured her that he would register the above property in her name by way of gift deed, but he did not do so. Since she got married him, she did not get any doubt on him; A1 addicted to smoking and drinking excessively, much to her displeasure. Thus, A1 and A2 started illtreating and harassing her on daily basis; A-1 also started picking up quarrels with her on flimsy grounds after drinking excessively; She has tolerated the same keeping her matrimonial life and welfare of her children; There was no change in the attitude of A1 and A2; In January, 2019, she came to know that A1 without her consent sold the property to third party without her consent, and dishonestly misappropriated the sale proceeds in active connivance with A2; Thus, A1 to A3 have committed the offences of criminal breach of trust and cheating arising out of immovable properties. R2 - Sumana Paruchuri, de facto complainant, was tenant in A1’s house in 2002 after returning from USA; There were disputes between her and her first husband - Srinivas Paruchuri and later obtained decree of divorce; Later, she got married A1 on 26.06.2011; A1 and A2 have demanded her to bring an amount of Rs.5.00 Crores of cash towards dowry and 50 tulas of gold and 2 kgs. of silver, clothes worth of Rs.10.00 lakhs; Since the date of marriage, A1 and A2 never allowed her to stay in the house freely and forced and coerced her to stay as per their whims and fancies; She was not allowed to interact initially with others; They have objected with regard to her dressing also; A1 used to have liquor excessively and used to smoke which is against her pleasure; A1 and 2 have abused her and harassed her, both physically and mentally. They also slapped her and demanded additional dowry; A2 has also slapped her and her children born through her first husband in the presence of relatives; They have not permitted her to visit the doctor for treatment to the injuries received by her out of harassment meted out by A1 and A2; They have also spread rumours about her character and thus they have tortured her both physically and mentally; A1 has submitted an apology letter dated 18.09.2011 tendering apology and assured that he would take care of her welfare as well as her children; In October, 2012, A1 returned home after-noon in drunken condition with his friends and demanded her Rs.2.00 Crores as additional dowry. Thus, both A1 and A2 harassed her, physically and mentally for additional dowry of Rs.2.00 Crores; In December, 2012 also, they repeated such act of harassment and tried to pour kerosene on her so as to kill her by setting on fire. In February, 2013, R2 was forced to go to her parents’ house for bringing additional dowry. However, her parents arranged a cash of Rs.20.00 lakhs towards additional dowry; In November, 2013, brother of A1 died due to Cancer and the property arrangements were with him. A1 picked up quarrel with her. On that day, A1 and A2 threatened her and her children by pointing out his Revolver at them stating that they have to act as per their instructions, otherwise, A1 would pull the trigger on them to kill. Thus, her children suffered deep mental agony. On 21.12.2013, both accused have beaten her, thrown her out of the house demanding additional dowry. There is also allegation of torture of R2 by A1 physically, mentally and sexually; She tolerated the same keeping in view the welfare of her children; A2 has also misbehaved with her and her children; In the first week of Dec.2013, after a huge fight ensued in which A1 attempted to pour petrol on her and her children. There is also allegation of torture of R2 by A1 physically, mentally and sexually; She tolerated the same keeping in view the welfare of her children; A2 has also misbehaved with her and her children; In the first week of Dec.2013, after a huge fight ensued in which A1 attempted to pour petrol on her and her children. Being scared for the safety, they left their parents’ house to take guidance from the elders; There is also allegation with regard to execution of will dated 01.08.2008 and cancellation of the same on 30.12.2013; A1 and A2 landed in Bangkok along with A1’s daughter, Vaishnavi Reddy with first his wife, R2 was waiting for them to return home and to have peaceful life; Thus, there are allegations of mental and physical harassment by accused Nos.1 and 2 apart from sexual harassment by A1, and this complaint is in relation to matrimonial disputes between the parties and the harassment meted out by A1 and 2 towards R2 and her children. 8. The above said allegations made in both the complaints would reveal that accused No.1 and respondent No.2 got married on 26.06.2011 and it is a second marriage to both of them. They got children through their first spouse. The allegations made in the first FIR No.742 of 2019 against the petitioners herein and Mrs. Smita Reddy are in relation to the disputes over immovable properties originally held by respondent No.2 and the offences are with regard to criminal breach of trust and cheating etc. Whereas, the allegations made in the second FIR No.488 of 2020 against the petitioners herein are in relation to matrimonial disputes and the harassment, both physically and mentally, by Accused Nos.1 and 2 and, sexually by accused No.1, meted out towards respondent No.2 and also threatening her and her children by accused No.1 with a revolver. 9. It is relevant to note that the petitioners herein and Mrs. Smita Reddy have filed a Criminal Petition No.8023 of 2019 under Section - 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in Crime No.742 of 2019. This Court vide order dated 21.12.2020 disposed of the said petition directing the Investigating Officer to follow the procedure laid down under Section - 41A of Cr.P.C. and also a direction to the petitioners to co-operate with the Investigating Officer. This Court vide order dated 21.12.2020 disposed of the said petition directing the Investigating Officer to follow the procedure laid down under Section - 41A of Cr.P.C. and also a direction to the petitioners to co-operate with the Investigating Officer. Challenging the same, the petitioners have filed a Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.82 of 2021, and the Hon’ble Apex Court granted stay of investigation in Cr.No.742 of 2019, vide order dated 29.01.2021. 10. Referring to various proceedings including the proceedings in O.S. No.499 of 2015 pending on the file of the Principal II Civil Judge at Bengaluru and C.P. No.431/241/HDB/2020 on the file of the National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad, Mr. Dil Jit Singh Ahluwalia, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the allegations in both the complaints are one and the same; inter-linked and the parties are also same. Therefore, registration of second FIR is not maintainable. To buttress his contention, learned counsel has relied upon the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in several judgments. 11. Mr. K. Vivek Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2, would submit that the allegations in both the complaints are distinct and different. The allegations in the first FIR No.742 of 2019 are with regard to commission of offences of criminal breach of trust and cheating etc. committed by the petitioners in respect of immovable properties, while the allegations in the second FIR No.488 of 2020 are with regard to the harassment, physically, mentally and sexually meted out towards respondent No.2 by the petitioners herein arising out of matrimonial disputes between accused No.1 and respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 has made specific allegations against the accused in both the complaints. Even in the second complaint, there is an offence under Section - 30 of the Arms Act, 1959. He would further submit that the allegations made by respondent No.2 in both the complaints are different and distinct and there is no sameness and, therefore, he sought to dismiss the present petition. He has also placed reliance on the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in several judgments. 12. He would further submit that the allegations made by respondent No.2 in both the complaints are different and distinct and there is no sameness and, therefore, he sought to dismiss the present petition. He has also placed reliance on the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in several judgments. 12. It is relevant to note that after registration of crime and on completion of investigation, the police have laid charge sheet in Crime No.488 of 2020 and the same was taken on file vide C.C. No.5893 of 2021 by the learned XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. A perusal of the charge sheet would reveal that the Investigating Officer has recorded the statements of as many as 15 witnesses. As on the date of filing charge sheet, since both the petitioners were in Bangkok, they are shown as absconding in the charge sheet and got issued Look Out Circular against accused No.1. 13. The above submissions made on either side and the aforesaid discussion would reveal that the allegations in both the complaints viz., Crime Nos.742 of 2019 and 488 of 2020 are different and distinct. As already mentioned above, the allegations made in the first FIR No.742 of 2019 against the petitioners herein and Mrs. Smita Reddy are in relation to the disputes over immovable properties originally held by respondent No.2 and the offences are with regard to criminal breach of trust and cheating etc. Whereas, the allegations made the second FIR No.488 of 2020 against the petitioners herein are in relation to matrimonial disputes and the harassment, both physical, mental and sexual meted out by the petitioners towards respondent No.2 and also threatening respondent No.2 and her children by accused No.1 with a revolver. Respondent No.2 has narrated the incidents right from 26.06.2011 in the second FIR. She has also mentioned about tendering of apology by accused No.1 through apology letter dated 18.09.2011. Thus, according to this Court, the allegations in both the complaints are different and distinct and there is no sameness except the fact that the petitioners - accused Nos.1 and 2 and respondent No.2, de facto complainant herein are common. 14. In view of the above stated facts, it is trite to note that the lis involved in the present petition is no more res integra. 15. 14. In view of the above stated facts, it is trite to note that the lis involved in the present petition is no more res integra. 15. A Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh in Jakir Hussain Kosangi v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2018 (4) ALD 180 made research with regard to maintainability of Second FIR, referring to 21 judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court right from Ram Lal Narang v. State [ (1979) 2 SCC 322 ] to Yanab Sheikh @ Gagu v. State of West Bengal [ (2013) 6 SCC 428 ] and the principle laid down by a learned Single Judge in Akbaruddin Owaisi v. Government of Andhra Pradesh [ 2013 (6) ALT 101 ]. The tabular form mentioned therein under the caption “Evolution of the Law” for the purpose of deciding the lis involved in the present petition is relevant and the same is extracted below : S. No. Decision The dispute arose out of Whether the Second (2nd) FIR or Multiple FIR filed are Valid or Invalid 1. Ram Lal Narang v. State (Delhi Administration) and Om Prakash Narang & Ors v. State (Delhi Administration), MANU/SC/0216/1979: (1979) 2 SCC 322 Arose out of theft of two sandstone pillars of great antiquity Valid 2. M. Krishna v. State of Karnataka, MANU/SC/0127/1999: (1999) 3 SCC 247 Arose out of amassing wealth disproportionate to one’s source of income Valid 3. V.K. Sharma v. Union of India, MANU/SC/0215/2000: (2000) 9 SCC 449 Arose out of swindling a large number of depositors on the false pretext that their deposits would be returned with interest on a subsequent date. (White Collar Crime) Valid (Multiple FIRs) 4. Mohan Bhaitha v. State of Bihar, MANU/SC/0217/2001: (2001) 4 SCC 350 Arose out of a dowry death. Note: The question involved here is not concerned about whether there can be more FIRs than one but whether there can be more trials than one. Held: Offences more than one committed by the same persons could be tried at one trial, if they can be held to be in one series of facts so as to form the same transaction. 5. T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC 350 Arose out of police firing resulting into deaths of few people and injuries to a large number of people. Third (3rd) FIR invalid. 6. 5. T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC 350 Arose out of police firing resulting into deaths of few people and injuries to a large number of people. Third (3rd) FIR invalid. 6. Narinderjit Singh Shani and another v. Union of India, MANU/SC/0644/2001: (2002) 2 SCC 210 Arose out of swindling of a large number of depositors on the false pretext that their deposits would be returned with interest on a subsequent date. Valid (Multiple FIRs) 7. Kari Chaudhary v. Most, Sita Devi and Ors, MANU/SC/0781/2001: (2002) 1 SCC 714 Arose out of murder case Valid 8. State of Punjab v. Rajesh Syal, MANU/SC/0867/2002: (2002) 8 SCC 158 Arose out of swindling of a large number of depositors on the false pretext that their deposits would be returned with interest on a subsequent date. (White Collar Crime) Valid (Multiple FIRs) 9. Upkar Singh v. Vedprakash, MANU/SC/0733/2004: (2004) 13 SCC 292 Arose out of an attempt to murder and house-trespass cases Valid 10. Rameshchandra Nandlal Parikh v. State of Gujarat MANU/SC/2289/2006: (2006) 1 SCC 732 Arose out of swindling of a large number of depositors on the false pretext that their deposits would be returned with interest on a subsequent date. Valid (Multiple FIRs) 11. Vikram v.State of Maharashtra, MANU/SC/7628/2007: (2007) 12 SCC 332 Arose out of murder case Valid 12. Pramod Kumar Saxena v. Union of India and Ors, MANU/SC/8060/2008: (2008) 9 SCC 685 Arose out of swindling of a large number of depositors on the false pretext that their deposits would be returned with interest on a subsequent date. Valid (Multiple FIRs) 13. Nirmal Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab and Others, MANU/SC/8189/2008: (2009) 1 SCC 441 Arose out of scandal involving selection of Panchayat Secretaries Valid 14. C. Muniappan and others v. State of Tamil Nadu, MANU/SC/0655/2010: (2010) 9 SCC 567 Arose out of setting fire to a university bus and several public buses. Investigation of the Second FIR was clubbed with the investigation of the First FIR. In essence, two complaints/FI Rs are clubbed together and investigated jointly. 15. Bahubhai v. State of Gujarat, MANU/SC/0643/2010: (2010) 12 SCC 254 Arose out of altercation that took place between members of the two communities. Invalid 16. Investigation of the Second FIR was clubbed with the investigation of the First FIR. In essence, two complaints/FI Rs are clubbed together and investigated jointly. 15. Bahubhai v. State of Gujarat, MANU/SC/0643/2010: (2010) 12 SCC 254 Arose out of altercation that took place between members of the two communities. Invalid 16. Chirra Shivraj v. State of AP, MANU/SC/0992/2010: (2010) 14 SCC 444 Arose out of an attempt to murder case Second F.I.R. held valid because SHO made a mistake by recording information as a fresh F.I.R. and that this mistake should not make the case of prosecution weak especially when no prejudice had been caused. 17. Shiv Shankar Singh v.State of Bihar, MANU/SC/1373/2011: (2012) 1 SCC 130 Arose out of decoity and murder Valid 18. Surender Kaushik and others v. State of UP, MANU/SC/0131/2013: (2013) 5 SCC 148 Arose out of fake and fraudulent documents prepared by the accused persons. Invalid 19. Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. CBI, MANU/SC/0329/2013: (2013) 6 SCC 348 Arose out of murder cases Invalid 20. Anju Chowdry v. State of UP, MANU/SC/1129/2012: (2013) 6 SCC 384 Arose out of hate speech Valid 21. Yanab Sheikh @ gagu v. State of West Bengal MANU/SC/1122/2012: (2013) 6 SCC 428 Arose out of a murder case. Invalid The Division Bench finally held as follows: “50. From the above table, it could be seen that the cases in which the validity of multiple FIRs was raised, fell at lease into six categories, such as (1) murder/attempt to murder; (2) mob violence leading to destruction of property, murder and/or encounter; (3) theft/dacoity; (4) abuse of official position, adoption of corrupt practices and amassing of wealth; (5) hate speech; and (6) companies receiving deposits from innumerable persons and there after defaulting in repayment. Out of the 21 cases listed above, 5 cases alone relate to non-repayment of deposit money by finance companies. In all these five cases where innumerable complaints were lodged by depositors, the Supreme Court did not choose to interfere. Therefore, the decision of the Supreme Court in TT Antony on which heavy reliance is placed by the counsel for the petitioners cannot go to the rescue of the petitioners. 51. In all these five cases where innumerable complaints were lodged by depositors, the Supreme Court did not choose to interfere. Therefore, the decision of the Supreme Court in TT Antony on which heavy reliance is placed by the counsel for the petitioners cannot go to the rescue of the petitioners. 51. Despite the fact that the decision of the Two Member bench in T.T. Antony was not taken note of in (i) Narinderjit Singh Sahni, (ii) State of Punjab v. Rajesh Syal and (iii) Pramod Kumar Saxena, it is clear that in all those 3 decisions, the Supreme Court was concerned with the cases of persons who collected money from innumerable persons but failed to repay the same. The decision in T.T. Antony arose out of offences relating to Law and Order, Public Order and the Police Firing.” (i) While referring to the principle laid down by the learned Single Judge in Akbaruddin Owaisi’s Case (Supra), the Division Bench held that some of the judgments, which are subsequent to T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala (2001 Cri.L.J. 3329), were not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge and, therefore, the learned Single Judge referring to the principle enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in T.T. Antony’s Case, laid down certain parameters with regard to registration and continuation of second FIR. Referring to the contentions raised in Akbaruddin Owaisi’s Case, the Division Bench held that the decision in Akbaruddin Owaisi’s Case which arose out of registration of multiple FIRs in relation to a single speech can have no application to the facts of the case in Jakir Hussain Kosangi , (supra) . (ii) It is relevant to note that in Jakir Hussain Kosangi, (supra) , the petitioners therein sought to issue a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents’ police in allowing the registration of multiple FIRs and conducting an investigation into all of them in relation to the same set of facts, as unconstitutional. They have also sought a direction to set aside all the Prisoner Transit Warrants issued against them. The said case is commonly known as ‘Agri Gold Scam’. Originally, M/s. Akshaya Gold Farms and Villas India Limited and their Directors have received deposits from various persons running into lakhs with a promise to repay the same with interest. They have also sought a direction to set aside all the Prisoner Transit Warrants issued against them. The said case is commonly known as ‘Agri Gold Scam’. Originally, M/s. Akshaya Gold Farms and Villas India Limited and their Directors have received deposits from various persons running into lakhs with a promise to repay the same with interest. But, they failed to repay the same which led to registration of several FIRs in all over the Country. Considering the said facts and referring to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in various judgments which are 21 in number, and also the judgment in Akbaruddin Owaisi’s Case, the Division Bench held that registration of second FIR and investigation of same is maintainable on certain facts. 16. The principle laid down in P. Sreekumar v. State of Kerala, (2018) 4 SCC 579 , Samta Naidu v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2020) 5 SCC 378 and Krishna Lal Chawla v. State of U.P., AIR 2021 SC 1381 is subsequent to the judgment in Jakir Hussain Kosangi (supra) and, therefore, there is no reference and consideration of the said principle by the Division Bench in Jakir Hussain Kosangi (supra) . Thus, according to this Court, it is also relevant to refer to the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the said judgments. 17. In P. Sreekumar (supra) , the dispute was with regard to the complaints lodged by the Trustees of M/s. Vidyodaya Trust. Two FIRs were registered on the allegations of conspiracy and forgery of signatures in relation to siphoning off an amount of Rs.42.00 lakhs belong to the said Trust by manipulation and forging the accounts books and several other documents of the Trust. The second complaint was also almost on the very same allegations including the allegation of misuse of the post of the said Trust. The Hon’ble Apex Court referring to the principle laid down by it in earlier judgments including the judgment in Upkar Singh v. Vedprakash [ (2004) 13 SCC 292 ] and also the facts of the said case held that the second FIR is maintainable since though it is related to the same incident for which the first FIR was registered and the allegations in the second FIR are in the nature of counter-complaint and, therefore, it was maintainable. The Hon’ble Apex Court laid down certain principles with regard to the maintainability of second FIR which are as follows: (i) the second FIR was not filed by the same person, who had filed the first FIR. Had it been so, then the situation would have been somewhat different. Such was not the case here; (ii) a counter-complaint by different complainant; and (iii) the first FIR was against five persons based on one set of allegations, whereas the second FIR was based on the allegations different from the allegations made in the first FIR; 18. In Samta Naidu (supra) , the Hon’ble Apex Court while dealing with the facts of the case therein with regard to the dispute between the sons of late G.S. Naidu in relation to sale of a Maruti-800 Vehicle by forging signature of their father held that the allegations in both the complaints are one and the same and, therefore, the second complaint/FIR is not maintainable. The Hon’ble Apex Court considered the principle of sameness therein. 19. In Krishna Lal Chawla (supra) an altercation took place between the parties therein on 5.08.2012, two crimes were registered, and the Hon’ble Apex Court in exercise of inherent powers under Article - 142 of the Constitution of India to do complete justice, held that the second FIR is on the very same set of allegations between the very same parties and, therefore, the same is not maintainable and in exercise of power under Article - 142 of the Constitution of India, quashed the proceedings in both the crimes. 20. The sum and substance of the above said judgments is that there is no embargo for registration of two FIRs on the following circumstances/grounds: (a) where the allegations made in both the FIRs are from different spectrum, where there are different versions from different persons; (b) same set of facts may constitute different offences; (c) where there are two distinct offences having different ingredients; (d) where the allegations are different and distinct; (e) when there are rival versions in respect of same episode, they would normally take shape of two different FIRs and investigation can be carried out under both of them by the same Investigating Agency. 21. The Court which is examining permissibility of registration of second FIR has to consider whether there is substance of allegation and overlapping feature made in both the complaints. 21. The Court which is examining permissibility of registration of second FIR has to consider whether there is substance of allegation and overlapping feature made in both the complaints. The Court has to further consider the truth of sameness and that whether the allegations are different and distinct. If the allegations in both the complaints are same between same persons, then registration of second FIR is not maintainable. 22. In view of the above authoritative principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court referred to above, coming to the case on hand, as discussed above, the allegations made in both the complaints are different and distinct. At the cost of repetition, it is trite to note that the allegations/disputes in the first FIR are with regard to property disputes and the allegations/disputes in the second FIR are with regard to matrimonial disputes. Therefore, there is no sameness in the allegations made by respondent No.2 in both the complaints. Thus, the contention of the petitioners that registration of second FIR is illegal is unsustainable. There are several triable issues and the factual aspects which are to be considered by the trial Court during the trial. The petitioners have to face trial and prove their innocence. 23. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar v. The State of Maharashtra, AIR 2019 SC 847 has categorically held that quashing criminal proceedings was called for only in a case where complaint did not disclose any offence, or was frivolous, vexatious, or oppressive. If allegations set out in complaint did not constitute offence of which cognizance had been taken by Magistrate, it was open to High Court to quash same. It was not necessary that, a meticulous analysis of case should be done before trial to find out whether case would end in conviction or acquittal. If it appeared on a reading of complaint and consideration of allegations therein, in light of the statement made on oath that the ingredients of the offence are disclosed, there would be no justification for High Court to interfere. The defences that might be available, or facts/aspects which when established during trial, might lead to acquittal, were not grounds for quashing complaint at threshold. At that stage, only question relevant was whether averments in complaint spell out ingredients of a criminal offence or not. The defences that might be available, or facts/aspects which when established during trial, might lead to acquittal, were not grounds for quashing complaint at threshold. At that stage, only question relevant was whether averments in complaint spell out ingredients of a criminal offence or not. The Court has to consider whether complaint discloses that, prima facie, offences that were alleged against Respondents. Correctness or otherwise of said allegations had to be decided only in trial. At initial stage of issuance of process, it was not open to Courts to stifle proceedings by entering into merits of the contentions made on behalf of Accused. Criminal complaints could not be quashed only on ground that, allegations made therein appear to be of a civil nature. If ingredients of offence alleged against Accused were prima facie made out in complaint, criminal proceeding shall not be interdicted. 24. In Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Private Limited v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 2021 SC 931 , the Hon’ble Apex Court referring to the earlier judgments rendered by it has categorically held that the High Courts in exercise of its inherent powers under Section - 482 of Cr.P.C has to quash the proceedings in criminal cases in rarest of rare cases with extreme caution. 25. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, since there are several triable issues, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.5893 of 2021. 26. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the police without following the procedure laid down under Section - 41A of Cr.P.C., without following the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 and without conducting fair and transparent investigation, laid the charge sheet against the petitioners herein showing them as absconding. The police have also issued LOC against accused No.1, so that they will be arrested on their return to India from Bangkok. 27. A perusal of the charge sheet in Crime No.488 of 2020 would reveal that there is no specific mention with regard to the efforts made by the Investigating Officer to serve the notices under Section - 41A of Cr.P.C. on the petitioners herein. Admittedly, the petitioners herein are in Bangkok, even then, the Investigating Officer filed the charge sheet showing them as absconding. 28. Admittedly, the petitioners herein are in Bangkok, even then, the Investigating Officer filed the charge sheet showing them as absconding. 28. Considering the said fact and also the fact that the police have already filed charge sheet which was taken on file vide C.C. No.5893 of 2021 and a request was made by the Investigating Officer to issue Non-Bailable Warrant against the petitioners, this Criminal Petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioners herein to appear before the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, file an application to recall NBWs, if any, issued against them within one month from today and, thereafter they shall appear before the said Court on the next date of hearing without contending that they are not having knowledge of date of hearing. However, the Police Officials of RGI Police Station, Immigration Authorities or any other Authority shall not arrest the petitioners either under the guise of issuance of LOC, pendency of same or under the guise of NBW, if any, pending against them in C.C. No.5893 of 2021. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Criminal Petition shall stand closed.