"Don't Register Multiple Cases On Same Allegations": Telangana HC Directs DGP In Case Of Journalist-Youtuber Facing 35 FIRs

The Telangana High Court last week directed the Telangana State's Director General of Police to refrain from registering multiple FIRs on the same allegations against a Journalist-YouTuber facing multiple FIRs on allegations of using abusive and derogatory language against the Chief Minister of Telangana, K. Chandrashekar Rao, and his relatives.

The bench of Justice K. Lakshman was hearing the plea filed by the wife of a Free-press Journalist, Naveen Kumar Chintapandu who runs a YouTube Channel named 'Q' News, seeking a declaration of registration of multiple FIRs arising out of the same cause of action against her husband as illegal.

The case in brief

Filing a writ plea, she alleged that the police authorities in connivance with political rivals and complainants, registered multiple crimes (35 FIRs for offenses under various provisions of Law) against the husband of the petitioner based on the same cause of action only to harass him.

She also contended that registering of multiple FIRs violates Articles - 19 (1) (a) and 21 of the Constitution of India and it is also violative of the procedure laid down under the Cr.P.C. and also contrary to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court and this Court in a catena of judgments. 

As per the contents of the counter affidavit filed by the State Government, 35 crimes were registered against the husband of the petitioner, out of which, two crimes were registered in the year 2018, 2 in the year 2019, 13 in 2020, and 18 crimes were registered in the current year.

Importantly, it was apprised to the Court by the petitioner that her husband was arrested on August 28, 2021, and when he secured bail, the police again arrested him under the guise of execution of PT Warrant in another case.

It was argued that due to this, the husband of the petitioner was not in a position to come out and he would be in judicial custody.

Court's observations

At the outset, the Court referred to the case of Arnab Ranjan Goswami case, in which the Apex Court had held that the balance has to be drawn between the exercise of a fundamental right under Article - 19(1)(a) and the investigation for an offence under the Cr.P.C.

"All other FIRs in respect of the same incident constitutes a clear abuse of process and must be quashed," the High Court noted after referring to Arnab Goswami's ruling of Apex Court.

Further, noting that in some of the cases, PT warrants are pending against the petitioner's husband, the Court noted that the respondent police are not using the available technology to stop multiple registrations of FIRs.

Regarding the registration of cases against him on the same set of allegations, the Court observed thus:

"...most of the crimes registered in the current year relate to almost same allegations i.e., using abusive and derogatory language against the Chief Minister, his son, daughter and other Ministers in the News items posted in the said You Tube Channel. Most of the cases registered in the year 2020 also relate to the same allegations. It is his fundamental right enshrined in Article - 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution of India"

Further, underscoring that it is the duty of the respondent police to inform the husband of the petitioner about the pendency of crimes registered against him and PT warrant so as to avoid a situation, like in the present case wherein he isn't able to come out of jail, the Court further observed thus:

"The husband of the petitioner is kept in dark. He does not know how many cases are pending against him and how many PT warrants are issued/pending against him. Virtually, the respondent police are not allowing him to be released on bail. As discussed above, in almost all the cases, punishment prescribed for the offences alleged therein is seven years and below seven years. Therefore, the police have to necessarily follow the procedure laid down under Section - 41A of the Cr.P.C. and the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar, otherwise, it amounts to a violation of fundamental rights of the husband of the petitioner as guaranteed under Articles - 19 (1) (a) and 21 of the Constitution of India"

Against this backdrop, the Court sternly observed that the Telangana Police have to refrain from the registration of multiple crimes against an individual, like the one in the present case, which would damage their reputation and it will lead to loss of confidence of the people.

With this, the court held that the action of respondent police in registration of multiple crimes with regard to the very same allegation, closing the same on the ground that it amounts to double jeopardy, obtaining PT warrants and execution of the same depriving the right of a husband of the petitioner to obtain bail.

Lastly, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, considering the fact that several cases have been registered against the husband of the petitioner at various police stations of Telangana State, the Court issued the following directions to the respondent police, more particularly to the Director-General of Police, Telangana State.

• Respondent Police are directed to refrain from registration of multiple crimes on the same allegations and they shall consider the truth of sameness;
• If there is more than one crime pending against the husband of the petitioner in respect of the very same allegation arising out of the same cause of action, respondent police shall conduct investigation in one crime and treat the other crimes as statements under Section - 162 of the Cr.P.C.
• DGP shall personally supervise the investigation in respect of the crimes pending against the husband of the petitioner;
• He is directed to furnish the information either to the petitioner or her husband with regard to the pendency of cases against him and issuance/pendency of PT warrants against him and also issuance of Bailable/Non-Bailable Warrants within one (01) week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order under proper acknowledgment;
• He has to consider the allegations made against the husband of the petitioner in all thirty-five (35) crimes pending against him, and if there is any registration of multiple crimes in respect of the same allegations arising out of the same cause of action, he shall give necessary instructions to the concerned Investigating Officers to close such crimes, treat the same as statements under Section - 162 of the Cr.P.C.;
• In the above crimes mentioned in the tabular form where the punishment prescribed is seven years and below seven years, the concerned Investigating Officers shall strictly follow the procedure laid down under Section - 41A of the Cr.P.C. and also the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar , failing which it amounts to contempt of Court and they are liable for punishment;
• Respondent police shall follow the directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in D.K. Bose while arresting the husband of the petitioner and while executing PT warrant in K.N. Nehru ;
• The respondent police are further directed not to resort to any vindictive attitude towards the husband of the petitioner. They are further directed not to harass the petitioner and her husband in any manner under the guise of investigation in any of the crimes that are pending against him. However, the petitioner and her husband shall co-operate with the respondent police by submitting necessary information in concluding the investigation in the aforesaid crimes;
• Respondent No.2 shall issue necessary instructions to all the Station House Officers to utilize the latest technology / Apps viz., ICJS (Inter-operable Criminal Justice System), CIS (Case Information System); CCTNS, TSCOP and Intranet etc., while registering the crimes and while conducting investigation against the husband of the petitioner or any other accused in the State of Telangana;
• The Investigating Officers shall conduct an investigation in a fair and transparent manner.

With the above directions/observations, the INSTANT Writ Petition was disposed of.

Case title - Smt. K. Mathamma W/o Naveen Kumar Chintapandu v. The State of Telangana, rep by its Principal Secretary for Home, Hyderabad & others

Click here To Download Order/judgment

Read Order/judgment