Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

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