Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2026 DIGILAW 123 (AP)

Alladi Punna Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2026-01-31

Y.LAKSHMANA RAO

body2026
ORDER : 1. The Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “…to issue any vmt or direction more particularly a writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in registering multiple firs with regard to the same incident and registering FIR.No.166 of 2025 dt. 22.04.2025 on the file of Duwada Police Station Visakhapatnam and FIR No.85 of 2025 dt.01.05.2025 on the file of Dwaraka Police Station Visakhapatnam as illegal arbitrary and violative of articles 14, 20 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently quash the FIRs against the petitioner including FIR No.166 of 2025 dt.22.04.2025 on the file of Duwada Police Station Visakhapatnam and transfer all other complaints against Sneha Mutually Aided Cooperative Society Ltd SNEHA MACS LTD where the FIR No.166 of 2025 is registered before Duwada Police Station Visakhapatnam treating the said subsequent complainants as witnesses and to pass such orders….” 2. The writ petition is filed by the petitioner, aged about 71 years, who has been arrayed as Accused No. 3 in Crime No. 166 of 2025, registered on 22.01.2025 at Duvvada Police Station, Visakhapatnam Commissionerate, for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 411, 414 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity, ‘the IPC’), and Sections 21(1), 21(2), 21(3) and 23 of the Telangana Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act (TBUDS), and Sections 3 and 4 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘the I.P.C’). 3. At the behest of one Peerubandi Prakasa Rao, the de-facto complainant, a case in Crime No. 85 of 2025 was registered by the Station House Officer, Dwaraka Police Station, Visakhapatnam Commissionerate, on 01.05.2025 for the very same offences, viz., Sections 406, 411, 414 and 120- B of “the IPC.,’ Sections 21(1), 21(2), 21(3) and 23 of ‘the TBUDS Act.,’ and Sections 3 and 4 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, read with Section 34 of ‘the IPC.,’ in which also the petitioner was shown as Accused No. 3 4. Sri Ganta Ramarao, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri G. R. Sudhakar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that in both the complaints, the de-facto complainants have arrayed the entire Board of Directors and staff of Sneha MACS Ltd., as accused. Sri Ganta Ramarao, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri G. R. Sudhakar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that in both the complaints, the de-facto complainants have arrayed the entire Board of Directors and staff of Sneha MACS Ltd., as accused. He submits that Sneha MACS Ltd., was established in the year 2008 and that the petitioner was appointed as Director/CEO only in the year 2022, pursuant to deposits made by him and his family members to a tune of approximately Rs.2 crores. He further submits that in the year 2024, a few depositors complained of non- payment of their deposits on maturity and that, solely in view of his official capacity as CEO of Sneha MACS Ltd., the petitioner was arrayed as Accused No. 3 and attempts were made to apprehend him. Sri Ganta Rama Rao, learned Senior Counsel further submitted that a notice under Section 41-A of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ was issued to the petitioner on 13.05.2025 in FIR No. 85 of 2025. Since certain offences alleged against him are punishable with imprisonment exceeding seven years, efforts were nevertheless made to arrest him. Consequently, the petitioner filed a pre-arrest bail petition in Crl.P. No. 6585 of 2025, and this Court, by order dated 24.07.2025, granted pre- arrest bail to him subject to certain conditions. It is also submitted that two quash petitions, namely Crl.P. Nos. 6863 of 2025 and 6861 of 2025, were filed before this Court challenging the registration of FIR No. 166 of 2025 of Duvvada Police Station, and that an interim order dated 04.07.2025 was passed directing the police not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner. 5. Sri G. Ganta Rama Rao, the learned Senior Counsel further submits that the offences alleged in the two FIRs relate to the very same incident and transaction. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Akbaruddin Owaisi v. State of Andhra Pradesh , MANU/TL/2544/2022 , which in turn relied upon the decision in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala , (2001) 6 SCC 181 , it is submitted that registration of a second FIR in respect of the same transaction, whether for the same or different offences, is impermissible and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that against the same accused, the same cooperative society, and arising out of the same transaction, two FIRs have been registered at the instance of depositors/de facto complainants. It is further submitted that the investigation has been conducted on a war-footing basis and that material documents and electronic devices have already been seized. Therefore, it is urged that all complaints against Sneha MACS Ltd., including any subsequent complaints, be transferred to Duvvada Police Station in the interest of justice. 6. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submits that although both complaints arrayed the entire Board of Directors and staff as accused, he was neither part of the governing body earlier nor involved in the affairs of the society prior to 2022, having joined as Director/CEO only after investing nearly Rs.2 crores of his and his daughters’ deposits. When certain depositors complained of non-payment in 2024, he, as CEO, made efforts to settle dues, did not withdraw his own deposits, and resigned on 21.10.2024, yet was later arrayed as Accused No.3 and subjected to arrest attempts. While his anticipatory bail was initially rejected, the High Court granted him anticipatory bail and interim protection in connected quash petitions, directing the police not to take coercive steps. Despite these orders, the petitioner alleges that multiple FIRs on identical facts are being registered at different police stations to circumvent judicial protection, which is impermissible in view of the law laid down in T.T. Antony case. He therefore asserts that he has no efficacious alternative remedy and is constrained to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 7. Pet Contra, Sri P. Ajay Babu, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing respondent Nos.1 to 6 argued that the cause of action in the two cases in Crime No.166 of 2025 and crime No.85 of 2025 are entirely different. The place, date and time of the alleged offences are also different. The gullible depositors who were deceived by the petitioner and other accused of Sneha MACS have chosen to lodge reports with the police stations of their locality. The investigation in the two cases has not at been completed. Some more material witnesses are to be examined and some more accused are to be apprehended. The writ petition is not maintainable as it is misconceived and urged to dismiss the writ petition with costs. The investigation in the two cases has not at been completed. Some more material witnesses are to be examined and some more accused are to be apprehended. The writ petition is not maintainable as it is misconceived and urged to dismiss the writ petition with costs. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home. Perused the record. 9. It is opposite to refer the judgment, relied on by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, of the Hon’ble Apex Court in T.T Antony supra wherein at para Nos.27, 28 and 35 it is 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. 10. It is further relevant to mention the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Arnab Ranjan Goswami v. Union of India , 2020 SCC OnLine 462 wherein at para Nos.59 and 61.5 it is noted that multiple FIRs and complaints were filed against the petitioner across several States and Union Territories in respect of the same cause of action. By an interim order dated 24.04.2020, the Hon’ble Apex 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 Hon’ble Apex 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 Supreme 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. 11. Relying on the law laid down in T.T. Antony supra the Hon’ble Supreme 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. 11. Upon a careful perusal of the records in Crime No. 85 of 2025 and Crime No. 166 of 2025, it is evident that the nature of the transactions between the gullible depositors, the petitioner, and Sneha MACS Ltd., is one and the same. Though the place, time, and dates of the alleged acts of fraud or non-payment of assured deposits along with interest may differ, the underlying transaction remains identical. 12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and in the interest of justice as well as the interest of the gullible depositors, the proceedings arising out of the registration of the two FIRs ought to be dealt with and investigated by a single police officer for an effective and coordinated investigation. 13. Accordingly, the proceedings in FIR No. 166 of 2025 of Duvvada Police Station are transferred to Dwaraka Police Station, where FIR No. 85 of 2025 is already registered and under investigation, in the interest of justice inasmuch as no prejudice would be caused to the depositors, as both Duvvada and Dwaraka Police Stations fall within the Visakhapatnam Commissionerate. In view of the above, the contention that the subsequent FIR in Crime No. 85 of 2025, registered on 01.05.2025 on the file of Dwaraka Police Station, is liable to be quashed cannot be accepted. 14. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.