Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

Separate Investigations for Each Incident: Each Transaction Constitutes a Separate Crime – Andhra Pradesh High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, led by Dr. Justice K. Manmadha Rao, dismissed writ petitions challenging the transfer of FIRs to various regional offices of the CBCID. The court held that each transaction at different company malls constitutes a separate crime, justifying separate investigations. This decision, dated 9th February 2024, impacts the manner in which cases involving multiple incidents across different jurisdictions are handled.

The petitions raised the issue of whether different transactions at various malls operated by New Look Retails Pvt Ltd. constituted separate crimes, warranting distinct investigations and the potential threat of multiple arrests for the same incident.

New Look Retails Pvt Ltd. and its personnel faced several FIRs across different police stations for alleged violations of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme Act. They contended that transferring these FIRs to different CBCID offices violated their fundamental rights, exposing them to multiple arrests and investigations for the same incident.

Justice Rao observed that each establishment of the petitioner's company in different locations led to separate incidents and thus, separate crimes. The court noted that combining these complaints could lead to confusion, hampering the course of justice. Despite the petitioners' contention that such transfers violated their fundamental rights, the court found no merit in these claims.

The judgement was based on the interpretation of the Indian Companies Act, 1956, the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978, the AP Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishment Act, and various sections of the Cr.P.C. The court emphasized the need for separate investigations to avoid confusion and ensure justice.

The High Court dismissed the writ petitions, finding them devoid of merit. The petitioners were granted the liberty to challenge the final report if any irregularities were found. The interim orders previously granted were vacated.

Date of Decision: 9th February 2024

New Look Retails Pvt Ltd., Mumbai & Others vs. CBCID, Hyd & Others

Latest Legal News