These petitions are disposed of by the common order, in

the following circumstances.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner in each of

these petitions and the learned State Public Prosecutor who was

directed to take notice.

The petitioners in all these petitions are arraigned as

accused Nos.1 and 2. The first of the petitions namely,

Crl.P.3774/2015, arises out of Crime No.172/2014 which is 165 now numbered as C.C.No.8/2015 on the file of the Court of the

II Additional Senior Civil Judge & Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Mangaluru. It was alleged by the complainant in each of the

petitions that the petitioners and four other persons were

running a company in the name and style of "Vraksha Business

Solutions India Ltd., situated at Utility Royal Towers, II Floor,

K.S. Rao Road, Mangaluru and were involved in collecting

deposits from the public for a fixed period and interest was to

be paid on the said deposits, to the depositors. The business of

the company was widely publicized through media and

investors were invited from the general public. Respondent

No.2 in all these petitions was an agent for collecting money

from the public and they had deposited the monies so collected,

to the company run by the petitioners. On maturity of the fixed

deposit period, it transpires that the company did not refund the

monies collected from the public and there were repeated

requests by such depositors to the agents, who were the

complainants in the cases. Since there were evasive answers to 166 the queries and demands made by the complainants, the

complainants had approached the court and the same was

registered as an First Information Report (FIR), as already

stated.

The second respondent in the present petitions are all

complainants who are similarly aggrieved. Each such

complaint being separately numbered as an FIR and individual

criminal cases having been initiated against the petitioners, the

petitioners are before this court.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would draw the

attention to the observations of the Supreme Court in the case

of T.T. Antony vs. State of Kerala and others 2001 (6) SCC 181,

wherein it is observed that an information given under sub-

section (1) of Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. is commonly known as

a First Information Report (FIR), though this term is not used in

the Cr.P.C . It is the earliest and the first information of a

cognizable offence recorded by an officer in charge of a police

station. It sets the criminal law into motion and marks the 167 commencement of the investigation which ends up with the

formation of opinion under Section 169 or 170 of Cr.P.C ., as

the case may be, and forwarding of a police report

under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. It is also possible that more

information than one are given to a police officer in charge of a

police station in respect of the same incident involving one or

more than one cognizable offences. In such a case, the Supreme

Court has observed that the police officer in charge need not

enter every one of them in the station house diary and this is

implied in Section 154 of Cr.P.C. All other informations made

orally or in writing after the commencement of the investigation

into the cognizable offence disclosed from the facts mentioned

in the FIR and entered in the station house diary by the police

officer or such other cognizable offences as may come to his

notice during the investigation, will be statements falling

under Section 162 of Cr.P.C. And that no such information or

statement can properly be treated as an F.I.R. and entered in the

station house diary again, as it would in effect be a second FIR 168 and the same cannot be in conformity with the scheme of

the Cr.P.C.

The Supreme Court has, by way of illustration,

postulated a situation in which A having killed B, his wife,

informs the police that she is killed by an unknown person or

knowing that B is killed by his mother or sister, A owns up the

responsibility and during investigation the truth is detected; it

does not require filing of fresh FIR against A - the real offender

who can be arraigned in the report under Section 173(2) or

173(8) of Cr.P.C ., as the case may be. It would of course be

permissible for the investigating officer to send up a report to

the concerned Magistrate even earlier that investigation is being

directed against the person suspected to be the accused.

Therefore, the Supreme Court has concluded that under the

scheme of the provisions of Sections 154 , 155 , 156 , 157 , 162 , 169 , 170 and 173 of Cr.P.C., only the earliest or the first

information in regard to the commission of a cognizable

offence satisfies the requirements of Section 154 Cr.P.C. Thus, 169 there can be no second F.I.R. and consequently there can be no

fresh investigation on receipt of every subsequent information

in respect of the same cognizable offence or the same

occurrence or incident giving rise to one or more cognizable

offences. On receipt of information about a cognizable offence

or an incident giving rise to a cognizable offence or offences

and on entering the F.I.R. in the station house diary, the officer

in charge of a Police Station has to investigate not merely the

cognizable offence reported in the FIR but also other connected

offences found to have been committed in the course of the

same transaction or the same occurrence and file one or more

reports as provided in Section 173 of the Cr.P.C.

It is also pointed out that the Government of Karnataka,

Police Department has issued a circular

No.L&O/Misc./24/2015-16 dated 30.07.2015, wherein it has

been stated that any subsequent information the Investigating

Officer receives with regard to any incident out of the same

incident or with regard to any incident out of the same 170 transaction, he shall not register further crime numbers but he

shall treat that information as the statement of the witnesses

either under Section 162 of Cr.P.C. or under Section 161 of

Cr.P.C. in the earliest case registered. Therefore, he would

submit that it would save precious judicial time and the pending

proceedings could be conveniently disposed of if the earliest

case registered on the same set of circumstances is taken as the

main case and all subsequent complaints are made as statements

made in the said case and to that extent, there would be no

prejudice caused to any of the complainants, as the relief sought

for by the complainants is to punish the petitioners for the

alleged offences which could be conveniently tried on one

single case and therefore, would seek the indulgence of this

court to allow these petitions in terms as prayed for.

4. The learned State Public Prosecutor would not dispute

the legal position as sought to be interpreted with reference to

the judgment of the Supreme Court as well as the circular

issued by the State.

Consequently, the petitions are allowed. The court below

is directed to treat the case in C.C.No.8/2015 as the main case

and all subsequent complaints which are the subject matter of

these several petitions be treated as statements by the witnesses

and the cases could be tried as a single case, on the strength of

the evidence of the several complainants who would be treated

as witnesses. If any further complaints are registered, since

there are large number of investors involved and it is more

likely that in future other cases would be filed, in respect of

such cases arising out of the same set of circumstances, the

same rule shall be applied by the prosecution in taking those

cases, recording the statements of such complainants as

statements made in the course of investigation. In the event

there are any private complaints filed under Section 200 Cr.P.C., the same shall be brought to the attention of the court

that the above order has been passed whereby if such additional

cases either by way of a police complaint or a private complaint 172 is instituted, they shall be treated as statements made in the

pending cases aforesaid.

I.A.1/2015 in all the petitions stand disposed of.