Batchu Srinivasa Rao Alias Srinu (A2) And 2 Others v. State Of Andhra Pradesh
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY CRL.P.No.3232 OF 2018 ORDER:
This criminal petition is filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners/A2, A3 and A1 in Crime No.107 of 2017 of Gara Police Station, Srikakulam District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 read with 34 IPC under Section 3(1)(r)(s) and 2 of SC and ST (POA) Act, 2015.
The case of the prosecution in brief is that Balaga Krishna Murthy, who belongs to the schedule caste, father of the deceased Balaga Kameswara Rao lodged a report alleging that his son had illicit intimacy with one lady Gayatri, who belongs to Reddika caste of another village mentioning the name of the petitioner and others. Earlier, the de facto complainant gave a report before the Gara Police Station, Bachuvanipeta Village without mentioning the names of the accused including the petitioner, alleging that both of them were killed in Palmyra Tope at the extreme end point of Bachuvanipeta Village near to bay of sea and he does not know who killed his son, but he came to know that his son was killed due to grudge having illicit intimacy with higher caste girl. The petitioner and others held meeting in Rama Mandir 10 days prior to 08.08.2017 and decided to kill his son.
The main contention of the petitioner before this Court is that in the earlier report dated 08.08.2017, no specific names were disclosed as to who is responsible for causing murder of his son, but made a bald allegation that somebody killed his son. Later, on 13.12.2017 i.e. almost after four months after the death of the
petitioner's son, he lodged another report alleging that the petitioner and others committed murder of his son. It is also the contention of the petitioner that when the first report did not disclose commission of any offence against the petitioner and giving second report would not serve any purpose and that apart, the second report cannot be registered as crime.
In Shiv Shankar Singh v. State of Bihar1 the Apex Court expressed a view that the law does not prohibit filing or entertaining of a second complaint even on the same facts, provided that the earlier complaint has been decided on the basis of insufficient material or has been passed without understanding the nature of the complaint or where the complete facts could not be placed before the Court and the applicant came to know of certain facts after the disposal of the first complaint.
The Court applied the test of full consideration of the complaints on merits and held as under:- "Thus, it is evident that the law does not prohibit filing or entertaining of the second complaint even on the same facts provided the earlier complaint has been decided on the basis of insufficient material or the order has been passed without understanding the nature of the complaint or the complete facts could not be placed before the court or where the complainant came to know certain facts after disposal of the first complaint which could have tilted the balance in his favour. However, the second complaint would not be maintainable wherein the earlier complaint has been disposed of on full consideration of the case of the complainant on merit."
The Division Bench of this Court relied on Ram Lal Narang v. State (Delhi Admn.)2, M.Krishna v. State of Karnataka3, 1 (2012) 1 SCC 130 2 (1979) 2 SCC 322 3 1999) 3 SCC 247
V.K.Sharma v. Union of India4, Mohan Bhaitha v. State of Bihar5, T.T.Antony v. State of Kerala6, Narinderjit Singh Shani v. Union of India7, Kari Chaudhary Vs. Most. Sita Devi8, State of Punjab v. Rajesh Syal9, Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash10, Rameshchandra Nandlal Parikh v. State of Gujarat11, Vikram v. State of Maharasht12, Pramod Kumar Saxena v. Union of India13, Nirmal Singh Kahlon Vs.
State of Punjab14, C.Muniappan v. State of T.N.15, Babubhai v. State of Gujarat16, Chirra Shivraj Vs. Sate of AP17, Shiv Shankar Singh v. State of Bihar18, Surender Kaushik v. State of Uttar Pradesh19, Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. CBI20 "Anju Chowdry Vs. State of U.P21, "YanabSheikh@gagu Vs. State of West Bengal22", distinguished the facts and on analysing the decisions of Apex Court recorded "evolution of the law" in the form of table, which is as follows:
S.NO Decision The dispute arose out of Whether the Second (2nd) FIR or Multiple FIRs filed are Valid or Invalid 1.
Ram Lal Narang Vs.
State(Delhi Administration) and Om Prakash Narang & Ors Vs.
State(Delhi Arose out of theft of two sandstone pillars of great antiquity.
Valid 4 (2000) 9 SCC 449 5 (2001) 4 SCC 350 6 (2001) 6 SCC 350 7 (2002) 2 SCC 210 8 (2002) 1 SCC 714 9 (2002) 8 SCC 158 10 (2004) 13 SCC 292 11 (2006) 1 SCC 732 12 (2007) 12 SCC 332 13 (2008) 9 SCC 685 14 (2009) 1 SCC 441 15 (2010) 9 SCC 567 16 (2010) 12 SCC 254 17 (2010) 14 SCC 444 18 (2012) 1 SCC 130 19 (2013) 5 SCC 148 20 (2013) 6 SCC 348 21 (2013) 6 SCC 384 22 (2013) 6 SCC 428
Administration), (1979) 2 SCC 322 2.
M. Krishna Vs. State of Karnataka, (1999) 3 SCC Arose out of amassing wealth disproportionate to one's source of income.
Valid 3.
V.K. Sharma Vs. Union of India, (2000)9SCC449 Valid (Multiple FIRs) 4.
Mohan Bhaitha Vs. State of Bihar, (2001)4SCC350 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) 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 Vs. State of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC 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.
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 Vs. Union of India, (2002)2SCC210 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 Vs.
Most. Sita Devi and Ors, (2002) 1 SCC 714 Arose out of a murder case.
Valid 8.
State of Punjab Vs.
Rajesh Syal , (2002)8SCC158 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.
Ved Prakash, (2004) 13 SCC Arose out of an attempt to murder and house-trespass cases Valid 10.
RameshchandraNandlal Parikh v.
State of Gujarat (2006) 1 SCC 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 Vs.
State of Maharashtra, (2007) 12 SCC 332 Arose out of a murder case.
Valid
12.
Pramod Kumar Saxena Vs. Union of India and Ors, (2008)9SCC685 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 Vs.
State of Punjab and Others, (2009) 1 SCC Arose out of scandal involving selection of Panchayat Secretaries.
Valid 14.
C.
Muniappan and others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (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 Vs. State of Gujarat, (2010) 12 SCC Arose out of altercation that took place between members of the two communities.
Invalid 16.
ChirraShivraj Vs. Sate of AP, (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 Vs.
State of Bihar, (2012) 1 SCC 130 Arose out of dacoity and murder.
Valid 18.
Surender Kaushik and Others Vs. State of UP, (2013) 5 SCC 148 Arose out of fake and fraudulent documents prepared by the accused persons.
Invalid 19.
AmitbhaiAnilchandra Shah Vs. CBI, (2013) 6 SCC 348 Arose out of murder cases Invalid 20.
Anju Chowdry Vs. State of UP, (2013) 6 SCC 384 Arose out of a hate speech.
Valid 21.
YanabSheikh@gagu Vs.
State of West Bengal, (2013) 6 SCC 428 Arose out of a murder case.
Invalid
Finally, concluded that the decision of the Two member bench in "T.T.Antony's case referred supra was not taken note of in "Narinderjit Singh Shani's case, Rajesh Syal's case and Pramod Kumar Saxena's case referred supra. In all those 3 decisions, the Apex Court concerned with the cases of persons who collected money from innumerable persons but failed to repay the same. The decision in T.T.Antony's case referred supra, arose out of offences relating to Law and Order, Public Order and the Police Firing. When the offences alleged against the person relates to collection of deposits and failure to repay, the reatio decidendi in "Narinderjit Singh Shani's case, Rajesh Syal's case, and Pramod Kumar Saxena's case referred supra alone would apply and not the ratio in T.T.Antony's case referred supra.
But in view of the Full Bench judgment of the Apex Court and various decisions referred supra, more particularly in Rajesh Syal's case referred supra multiple F.I.Rs. are valid. Similarly in "Rameshchandra Nandlal Parikh's case, Pramod Kumar Saxena's case, V.K.Sharma's case and Narinderjit Singh Shani's case referred supra it is also held that multiple F.I.Rs. are maintainable. But in few judgments "Bahubhai's case, T.T.Antony's case, Surender Kaushik's case and Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah's case referred supra it is held that multiple F.I.Rs. are not maintainable. But in view of Full Bench judgment of the Apex Court rendered in "State of Punjab's case referred supra the Division Bench of this Court concluded that multiple F.I.Rs. are maintainable.
every possibility of interfering with the investigation in view of the caste superiority in the village as the petitioner belongs to Reddyka caste, whereas the de facto complainant belongs to schedule caste. Therefore, I find, it is not a fit case to grant pre-arrest bail and consequently, the criminal petition is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous petitions in the petition, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________________ M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY,J 02.04.2018 kvrm