Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 784 (TS)

Chavva Kumar v. State of Telangana Home

2025-06-09

T.VINOD KUMAR

body2025
ORDER : T. VINOD KUMAR, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 7, and with their consent the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at admission stage. 2. Having regard to the manner of disposal of the writ petition and the nature of lis involved, this Court is of the view that notice to unofficial respondent Nos.8 to 11 is not necessary for adjudication of the present Writ Petition 3. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that respondent Nos.2 to 7 are registering multiple FIRs on the file of the 5 th respondent-Police Station in respect of the same transaction/incident covered by FIR.No.193/2018, which action of the respondents is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 & 21 of the Constitution of India. 4. Petitioners further contends that as the respondents- authorities having already registered a case vide FIR.No.193/2018, the authorities ought to not to have registered further crime as the same arise out of the same transaction/incident, and on the other hand, the respondents-authorities ought to have treated the complaint given by the other complainants as statements under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., while investigating into the first crime registered vide FIR.No.193/2018. 5. On behalf of the petitioners it is further contended that after registering multiple FIRs, all the cases have been transferred to CID, and as such, all the FIRs should have been clubbed together without registering further FIRs against the petitioners herein. 6. Per contra, learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondents-authorities would submit that initially case vide FIR.No.193/2018, dt.06.06.2018, has been registered against the petitioners herein basing on the complaint made by one Ch.Mallesh and another, claiming that the petitioners having lured him to invest money and that he would be paid interest @ Rs.1.50 paisa per Rs.100/-, and basing on the aforesaid promise, the complainant therein having deposited an amount of Rs.7 lakhs with the petitioners herein. 7. Learned Government Pleader would further submit that thereafter similar such complaints have been received against the petitioners of resorting to criminal breach of trust and cheating, from the unofficial respondents herein; and that the authorities based on the said complaints have registered the other FIRs viz., FIR.Nos.212, 213 and 337 of 2022. 8. 7. Learned Government Pleader would further submit that thereafter similar such complaints have been received against the petitioners of resorting to criminal breach of trust and cheating, from the unofficial respondents herein; and that the authorities based on the said complaints have registered the other FIRs viz., FIR.Nos.212, 213 and 337 of 2022. 8. Learned Government Pleader would further submit that each of the complainant by complaint lodged by them have claimed of the petitioners having cheated them of different amounts, and for the said reason, the authorities have registered different crimes and are investigating the same. 9. Learned Government Pleader would further submit that having regard to the serious nature of the complaints, the authorities have transferred the investigation of all the FIRs to CID, and the matter is being investigated into by the concerned CID authorities. 10. Learned Government Pleader would also submit that though the petitioners claim of the transactions/incidents to be the one and as such the authorities ought to be restrained from registered multiple FIRs and being investigated into independently, said claim cannot be accepted for the reason that, each of the incident/transaction is an independent transaction and does not arise out of a single transaction, for the petitioners to seek the aforesaid relief. 11. Learned Government Pleader would further submit that each of the complainants have made out a specific case against the petitioners, and since, the facts in each case are different, the action of the respondents-authorities in registering multiple FIRs cannot be called in question. 12. I have taken note of the respective submissions made. 13. Though the petitioner by the present Writ Petition claims that the aforesaid complaints arise out of the same transaction/incident, it is to be noted that from the complaints lodged by some of the unofficial respondents herein it appears that their grievance is not in relation to a particular transaction/incident, but is a continuous modus operandi adopted by the petitioners herein in luring the common public to invest money on the promise of making payment of interest at higher rate and each of the complainants having deposited different amounts with the petitioners during different periods, this Court is of the view that the petitioners cannot claim that all the aforesaid FIRs arise out of the same incident or transaction for them to approach this Court claiming that the authorities are to be restrained from registering multiple FIRs. 14. Further, a Division Bench of this Court in Jakir Hussain Kosangi and Ors., v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., Dt.04.07.2017 in Writ Petition Nos.29374 of 2016 and batch, dealt with the issue relating to in what kind of cases registration of multiple FIRs can be done and also as to what can be considered as single incident leading to registration of multiple FIRs. 15. Further, the said issue has also fell for consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court in Arnab Ranjan Goswami v. Union of India and others, AIR 2020 SUPREME COURT 2386 wherein the Apex Court had held that if multiple FIRs arise out of a single incident, then only a restraint can be imposed for registering multiple FIRs. 16. Also, the Apex Court in the latest decision in the case State of Rajasthan v. Surendra Singh Rathore, 2025 INSC 248 had laid down the guidelines with regard to registration of multiple FIRs arising out of same transaction. 17. Since, in the facts of the case, as noted herein above, as each of the complainants approaching the respondents-authorities have separate grievance and the incidents having taken place at different periods based on the modus operandi adopted by the petitioners, though such modus operandi adopted by the petitioners is same, this Court is of the view that the petitioner cannot claim as all the crimes arising out of same transaction or incident for them to approach this Court seeking a direction to restrain the respondents from registering multiple FIRs or by considering the complaint lodged by the complainant as statements made under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., by examining them as witnesses. 18. On behalf of the petitioners, though learned counsel has placed reliance on an order passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.32798 of 2024, dt.29.11.2024, this Court is of the view that the said decision of little assistance to advance the case of the petitioner, since in the aforesaid case, the incident complaint of is one, which had taken place on 11.11.2024, and based on the aforesaid incident, multiple complaints having been lodged thereof. 19. 19. Since, in the facts of the present case as noted herein above, the grievance of each of the complainant being different and having taken place on different dates and cause of action for each of the complainant having arisen on a different date, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is not entitled to grant any relief in the present Writ Petition. 20. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed. No order as to costs. 21. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.