Former Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) MLA Patnam Narender Reddy was taken into police custody on Wednesday (November 13, 2024).
| Photo Credit: By Arrangement
Justice K. Lakshman of Telangana High Court on Friday (November 29, 2024) quashed two First Information Reports issued against Former MLA Patnam Narender Reddy of Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) in the Lagacharla violence case.
The Judge, however, gave liberty to the Bomraspet police of Vikarabad district investigating the first FIR (crime no. 1532/024) in Lagacharla violence case to record statements of the complainants of the remaining two FIRs. These statements can be treated as statements of the witnesses in the first criminal case registered against the former MLA, the Judge said.
Basing his order on the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in TT Antony vs State of Kerala and Jacob John vs State of Manipur, the Judge observed that the registration of multiple FIRs against the ex-MLA was “impermissible”. Booking multiple criminal cases was not allowed even in cases of different incidents even if they were connected to same investigation arising out of same case of action, the Judge said.
The Judge held that the nature of the allegations, majority of the accused, damage of vehicles and cause of action in the three FIRs were the same. There was also a commonality between the accused and the complainant. The Judge noted that all three complaints resulting in three different FIRs were written by the same person.
The complainants, Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Mandal Revenue Officer and District Crime Records Bureau DSP, were educated and responsible officers. “Instead of preparing complaints on their own by mentioning the incident specifically, they have signed on the written complaint prepared by Writer of Bomraspet police station,” the Judge observed in his order.
Justice K. Lakshman noted that Additional Advocate General Tera Rajinikanth Reddy’s explanation that the officials were under pressure as District Collector and other officials were under physical attack and hence could not personally write the complaints “was not satisfactory”.
“They cannot sign on the complaints prepared by the Writer of the police station and lodge a complaint with the police at different timings, i.e., at 2 p.m., 3 p.m. and 4 p.m.,” the Judge said. The officials also did not mention in their respective complaints that they were prepared by the Writer at their instance and they signed the same after examining them.
“The said facts would show the intention of the respondents in implicating the petitioner in the aforesaid three crimes,” the Judge said in the order.
Published – November 30, 2024 11:47 am IST
