UDCPR | Municipal Authorities Empowered To Grant Relaxation For Recreational Open Spaces In Redevelopment Projects: Bombay High Court Appellate Court Can Enhance Compensation Under Motor Vehicles Act Even Without Cross-Appeal By Claimants: Allahabad High Court State Instrumentalities Cannot Supplement Reasons For Withholding Public Money Via Affidavits Years Later: Calcutta High Court Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act | Victim's Status As 'Illegal Immigrant' Does Not Dilute Offence Or Shield Perpetrator: Bombay High Court Clubbing Of Criminal Trials | No Basis To Direct Consolidation If Connected Proceedings Have Already Concluded: Delhi High Court IBC ‘Clean Slate’ Principle Cannot Extinguish Pre-existing Crystallized Liability Under Labour Awards: Bombay High Court Section 406 IPC | 'Donation' Does Not Constitute 'Entrustment'; Criminal Prosecution Quashed In Absence Of Aggrieved Victim: Delhi High Court Failure To Deliver Possession Of Plot Constitutes "Continuous Wrong" Giving Rise To Recurrent Cause Of Action Under Consumer Protection Act: Delhi State Commission High Court Cannot Entertain Writ Petition Under Article 226 When Statutory Appellate Remedy Under Section 107 CGST Act Is Available: Gujarat High Court Appointment Of Temple Servants Is The Exclusive Prerogative Of The Hereditary Trustee: Kerala High Court Stay Of Suit Proceedings Under CPC Does Not Automatically Bar Adjudication Of Pending Temporary Injunction Application: Rajasthan High Court Section 136A MV Act | Supreme Court Directs States To Impound Vehicles With Unpaid E-Challans And Mandates Electronic Enforcement Compliance Section 115 CPC | Executing Court Cannot Dismiss Execution Petition On Hyper-Technical Grounds Regarding LRs Of Judgment Debtor: Himachal Pradesh High Court Succession Act | Will Not Validly Executed If Attesting Witness Admits Signing Without Witnessing Testator’s Signature: Madras High Court High Court Cannot Interfere Under Article 227 To Correct Errors Of Fact Or Act As An Appellate Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Act 1961 | Bar Council Has No Power To Suspend Advocate Pending Disciplinary Enquiry: Allahabad High Court Identification Of Accused By Police Personnel In Pitch Darkness Without Prior Acquaintance Is Unreliable: Himachal Pradesh High Court Body Shaming Or Insulting Physical Appearance Does Not Per Se Constitute Offence Under Section 509 IPC: Karnataka High Court Drishyam 3 | Interim Injunction To Restrain Film Release Cannot Be Granted Without Establishing Clear Subsisting Legal Right: Madras High Court Town Planning Scheme | Statutory Notice To Occupiers Under Rule 12(2)(a) Punjab Municipal Rules Is Mandatory And Independent Of Notice To Owner: Punjab & Haryana High Court

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