MATCHAN @ ABUBACKER SIDDIK Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions have been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.Nos.101 of 2016 and 133 of 2015, respectively, on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Tiruvarur.

(2.) The petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.28802 of 2017 are arraigned as A1 to A5, A7, A11, A15, A16, A18, A21 and A22 in Crime No.315 of 2013, registered by the first respondent registered for the offences under Sections 147, 294(b), 504 506(1) of IPC and Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act. After completion of investigation, the first respondent filed a final report and the same has been taken cognizance in S.C.No.101 of 2016 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Tiruvarur. The allegations as against the petitioners are that on 09.08.2013, to celebrate Ramzhan festival, the petitioners along with other accused persons were went on rally in their respective bikes. At that time, there was a meeting conducted by the members belonging to the Bharathiya Janatha Party. Therefore, the first respondent diverted them to other route. But the petitioners along with other accused persons distracted the first respondent and other police officials from doing their official duty and also caused damage to the fruit shops, flower shops and other shops and also caused damage to the police vehicles.

(3.) It is also seen that the first respondent registered an another case as against the petitioners in Crime No.318 of 2018, on receipt of the separate complaint from a shop owner. It is seen that both the complaint registered for the very same set of facts and for the very same allegations. The first respondent also filed separate charge sheet in both the FIR registered as against the petitioners. In fact, the statement recorded from the witnesses under Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C are also one and the same in all the charge sheets. There cannot be even more than one FIR for the very same occurrence and that on the very same set of allegations.