Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a 65-year-old individual arrayed as Accused No.2 in Crime No.166 of 2025, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh seeking a writ of mandamus to club multiple FIRs registered against him and his family members. The FIRs pertained to alleged irregularities in deposits of Sneha Mutually Aided Cooperative Society (Sneha MACS Society). The petitioner contended that all FIRs arose from the same transaction and involved identical allegations, yet were registered at different police stations in Visakhapatnam Commissionerate without preliminary enquiry. The first FIR, Crime No.166 of 2025, was registered on 22.04.2025 at Duvvada Police Station for offences under Sections 406, 411, 414, 120-B read with Section 34 IPC, Sections 21(1), 21(2), 21(3) and 23 of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act. Subsequently, Crime No.85 of 2025 was registered on 01.05.2025 at Dwaraka Police Station based on a complaint by Peerubandi Prakasa Rao, Crime No.215 of 2025 was registered on 07.08.2025 at Gopalapatnam Police Station based on a report by Chikati Chiranjeevi Rao, and Crime No.222 of 2025 was registered by II Town Police Station on 03.12.2025 while the petitioner was released from custody in FIR No.215 and again arrested. All subsequent FIRs contained identical allegations regarding the same deposit irregularities and named the petitioner as accused. The petitioner argued that registration of multiple FIRs for the same transaction is illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, and contrary to settled law which mandates that subsequent complaints be treated as statements under Section 162 CrPC and clubbed with the first FIR. Reliance was placed on T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala and Akbaruddin Owaisi v. State of Andhra Pradesh. The petitioner further submitted that separate FIRs led to multiplicity of investigations, conflicting opinions, harassment, and prejudice to society members whose deposits remained unsettled due to his incarceration. The respondents, through the Assistant Government Pleader, contended that the cause of action in the four cases was entirely different, with different place, date, and time of alleged offences, and that depositors lodged reports at local police stations. The available judgment text ends while recording the respondents' submissions and does not include the final analysis or operative direction. Therefore, the final decision and ratio decidendi cannot be extracted from the provided text.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Multiple FIRs - Same Transaction - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 162; Constitution of India, Article 21 - Petitioner sought clubbing of four FIRs registered for identical allegations regarding Sneha MACS Society deposits; learned Senior Counsel argued that subsequent complaints must be treated as statements under Section 162 CrPC and clubbed with first FIR, relying on T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala and Akbaruddin Owaisi v. State of Andhra Pradesh. The court recorded submissions and considered applicability of the principle that multiple FIRs for the same transaction are impermissible (Paras 6-9). B) Constitutional Law - Fundamental Rights - Articles 14 and 21, Constitution of India - Petitioner contended that registering separate FIRs caused harassment, multiplicity of investigations, and prejudice to society members, violating equality and liberty; respondents argued cause of action, place, date, and time differed. The court was to determine whether multiple FIRs infringed fundamental rights (Paras 6-10). C) Writ Jurisdiction - Mandamus - Article 226, Constitution of India - Petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to declare action of respondents in registering multiple FIRs illegal and to direct clubbing of all pending FIRs with FIR No.166 of 2025 at Duvvada Police Station; court considered maintainability and merits (Paras 1-2).
Issue of Consideration
Whether registration of multiple FIRs for the same transaction/offence is permissible and whether all FIRs should be clubbed with the first FIR.
Law Points
- Multiple FIRs for same transaction impermissible
- subsequent complaints to be treated as Section 162 CrPC statements
- clubbing of FIRs to avoid multiplicity
- violation of Articles 14 and 21
- Writ of Mandamus under Article 226
- reliance on T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala and Akbaruddin Owaisi v. State of Andhra Pradesh
