HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION No.8222 OF 2010 and Crl.M.P.No.7579 OF 2010 Dated : 13.08.2010 Between : Mr.C.Muthusamy … Petitioner-A.2 A n d State of A.P. & others … Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION No.8222 OF 2010 and Crl.M.P.No.7579 OF 2010 ORDER : This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the petitioner seeking to club 94 criminal cases mentioned in Schedule-I annexed to the Criminal Petition along with Crime No.34 of 2009 of Central Crime Station, Hyderabad, third respondent herein. The allegations against the petitioner and other accused in all the crimes are that they in the name of M/s.Nagarjuna Finance Limited collected huge deposits from several persons including the de facto complainants in all the crimes, but failed to repay the matured amounts even after long lapse of maturity date. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Public Prosecutor for the State. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that initially Crime No.528 of 2000 of Panjagutta Police Station, Hyderabad, was registered basing on the complaint of one of the depositors of M/s.Nagarjuna Finance Limited alleging that the Finance Company after receiving deposits from Public had cheated by not repaying the same. After registration of such crime, various depositors lodged individual complaints before various Police Stations and all of them were transferred to third respondent. According to him the third respondent ought to have treated the subsequent complaints as statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. but not as individual crimes and the act of the third respondent registering the subsequent FIRs separately would amount to registration of second FIR, which can be intervened by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or Section 482 Cr.P.C. The learned counsel also submitted that the co-accused has approached this Court in W.P.No.100 of 2009 and this Court has admitted the same and passed an interim order not to arrest the said accused in any of the cases mentioned in Schedule-I. In this context it is pertinent to refer the judgment of the Supreme Court in T.T.Antony v. State of Kerala[1] wherein it was held that: 27. A just balance between the fundamental rights of the citizens under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution and the expansive power of the Police to investigate a cognizable offence has to be struck by the Court. There cannot be any controversy that sub-section (8) of Section 173 Cr.P.C. empowers the police to make further investigation, obtain further evidence (both oral and documentary) and forward a further report or reports to the Magistrate. In Narangs’ case (AIR 1979 SC 1791) it was, however, observed that it would be appropriate to conduct further investigation with the permission of the Court. However, the seeping power of investigation does not warrant subjecting a citizen each time to fresh investigation by the police in respect of the same incident, giving rise to one or more cognizable offences consequent upon filing of successive FIRs whether before or after filing the final report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. It would clearly be beyond the purview of Sections 154 and 156 Cr.P.C., may, a case of abuse of the statutory power of investigation in a given case. In our view a case of fresh investigation based on the second or successive FIRs, not being a counter- case, filed in connection with the same or connected cognizable offence alleged to have been committed in the course of the same transaction and in respect of which pursuant to the first FIR either investigation is underway or final report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C has been forwarded to the Magistrate, may be a fit case for exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or under Articles 226 / 227 of the Constitution.” In view of the above referred judgment, I am of the view that the present case is a fit case for exercising the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by this Court. In view of the well settled proposition, Crime No.528 of 2000 of Panjagutta Police Station being the crime registered earlier, any crime registered thereafter be treated as additional evidence or statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. That being the matter, third respondent is directed to investigate all the crimes mentioned in Schedule-I together with Crime No.34 of 2009 of third respondent. As far as the interim prayer of petitioner seeking to direct the respondents not to arrest him in all the crimes mentioned in Schedule-I is concerned, I am of the opinion that the same is not maintainable. However, from the records, it is found that the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail in crime No.575 of 2003 and 34 of 2009 by this Court in Crl.P.Nos.5624 and 5625 of 2010 by order dated 02.07.2010. The cases mentioned in schedule-I are not different from the above two cases on facts. Hence, the benefit of the said anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner has to be extended to him for the cases mentioned in schedule-I of the Criminal Petition. Therefore, Crl.M.P.No.7579 of 2010 is disposed of directing the petitioner to be released on anticipatory bail in all the cases mentioned in Schedule-I of the Criminal Petition on the same terms and conditions imposed on him by this Court vide order dated 02.07.2010 in Crl.P.Nos.5624 and 5625 of 2010. At this stage, the counsel for the petitioner requested this Court that the petitioner may be permitted to produce the same sureties in all the cases. Since, it is practically difficult to produce nearly 180 persons as sureties, the said request can be allowed and consequently, the petitioner is directed to produce same set of sureties in all the cases. The Criminal Petition is, accordingly, allowed. ________________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO Dated : 13.08.2010 sur [1]AIR 2001 SC 2639