(1.) In these matters petitioners, who have been arraigned as accused in Crime Nos.118/2012, 15/2018, 162/2018, 138/2018 and 82/2018, are seeking for quashing of proceedings registered by different police stations for the offences punishable under Section 76 of Chit Funds Act, 1982 and Sections 406 , 408 , 409 , 415 , 416 , 417 , 420 , 120B r/w Section 34 of IPC contending interalia that repetitive FIRs cannot be filed against them that too in respect of same offences and only with an intention to cause utmost inconvenience to the petitioners and to coerce them to come to an agreement with complainant, respective FIRs have been filed. It is contended that same is contrary to law laid down by this Court and catena of judgments including the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of matter of T.T.ANTONY vs. STATE OF KERALA reported in (2001) 6 SCC 181. Hence, they have prayed for quashing of the proceedings.
(2.) It is also contended by way of an alternate contention that investigation can be done atleast by one agency, which would also be in consonance with the Circular bearing No.L&O/MISC/24/2015-16 dated 30.07.2015-Annexure-G whereunder Director General and Inspector General of Police has directed investigating officer not to register more than one FIR pertaining to same transaction and as such it is prayed that as per the Circular dated 30.07.2015 the investigation relating to different FIRs registered by different police stations be investigated by one agency so as to cause least inconvenience not only to petitioners but also to the witnesses who would be tendering their statements.
(3.) I have heard the arguments of Sri.S.G.Rajendra Reddy and Smt. Shruthi, learned counsel appearing for petitioners and Sri. S.Rachaiah, learned HCGP appearing for respondent-State and Sri.N.Shankarnarayana Bhat, learned counsel appearing for first respondent-complainant in Crl.P.No.315/2013 and second respondent- complainants in other petitions are served and they are unrepresented.