Justice K. Lakshman of the Telangana High Court on Friday allowed the writ petition filed by former Kodangal MLA of the BRS, Patnam Narendar Reddy, quashing multiple FIRs registered against him by Bomraspet Police

By LEGAL CORRESPONDENT

Hyderabad: Justice K. Lakshman of the Telangana High Court on Friday allowed the writ petition filed by former Kodangal MLA of the BRS, Patnam Narendar Reddy, quashing multiple FIRs registered against him by Bomraspet Police.

---

The case centered on three FIRs filed in connection with the Lagacherla incident, which accused Reddy of conspiring in a series of incidents, including vehicle damage. The allegations in all three FIRs were notably similar, with the central charge being conspiracy. However, Justice Lakshman pointed out that there was no specific allegation that Reddy was physically present during the incidents or directly participated in the alleged attacks. The court emphasized that the only accusation against Reddy was involvement in a broader conspiracy.

Justice Lakshman highlighted a crucial legal principle, referencing prior rulings by both the Supreme Court and the Telangana High Court, which state that the registration of multiple FIRs for the same cause of action was impermissible. Even if the incidents were distinct, the court held that multiple FIRs arising from the same cause and involving the same parties would amount to an abuse of legal procedure. The judge further remarked that if FIRs were filed merely to “fill the lacunae” in the prosecution’s case, such actions would be deemed improper.

The court also scrutinized the circumstances under which the complaints were lodged. It was noted that the same police writer had prepared all three complaints. The complaints were signed by senior government officers, including the Sub Divisional Officer (SDO), Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO), and Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP), who were responsible for ensuring the accuracy and specificity of the complaints. Instead of independently preparing the complaints, these officers had signed the documents prepared by the Bomraspet Police Station writer.

Justice Lakshman expressed dissatisfaction with the explanation provided by the Additional Advocate General, T. Rajinikanth Reddy, who argued that the situation was tense following an attack on various officials, including the District Collector and Special Officer, which allegedly prevented the officers from drafting the complaints themselves. The judge pointed out that this explanation was unsatisfactory, noting that the high-ranking officials (Sub Divisional Police Officer, the MRO and Deputy Superintendent of Police) involved should have prepared their own complaints rather than relying on a police writer.

The judge also criticized the fact that the complaints were submitted at different times of the day (14:00, 15:00, and 16:00 hours) without any mention of the involvement of the police writer in preparing them, raising concerns about the intention to implicate Reddy in the three separate FIRs. In light of these observations, Justice Lakshman concluded that the FIRs, Cr.No.154 and Cr.No.155 of 2024, were based on the same set of facts as the initial FIR (Cr.No.153 of 2024), and thus, could not be maintained. As a result, the court quashed these FIRs and directed that the complaints and statements recorded in them be treated as part of the original FIR (Cr.No.153). The investigating officer was further granted the liberty to use the information from these complaints for continued investigation.