Limitation Period For Specific Performance Starts From Date Of Refusal If No Fixed Date Stipulated In Agreement: Karnataka High Court Pensionary Benefits Not ‘Pecuniary Advantage’, Cannot Be Deducted From Income For Motor Accident Compensation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Propounder Faces Heavy Burden Of Proof When Testator Is Illiterate; Registration Does Not Cure Unexplained Suspicious Circumstances: Supreme Court Mother Killing Minor Children Over Husband's Refusal To Take Her To Workplace Is Murder, Not Culpable Homicide: Andhra Pradesh High Court Specific Performance Of Registered Agreement To Sell Is No Longer Discretionary Post-2018 Amendment: Allahabad High Court Civil Court Has Jurisdiction To Determine If Tenanted Property Belongs To Joint Family Even If Tenancy Order Stands In Individual Karta's Name: Bombay High Court Notice Under Section 107 BNSS Mandatory Before Attaching Property; Right To Property Is A Constitutional Right: Calcutta High Court Post-Cognizance Arrest 'Makes No Sense' If Investigation Completed Without Arrest: Delhi High Court Grants Bail Under BNSS Criminal Courts Cannot Be Used To Settle Civil Inheritance Disputes Over Appreciated Land Values: Gujarat High Court Quashes Fraud Case Accused Must Raise Probable Defence To Rebut Statutory Presumption Under Section 139 NI Act If Signatures Are Undisputed: Himachal Pradesh High Court Passing Departmental Exam Not A Pre-requisite For Grant Of ACP/MACP Benefits: Jharkhand High Court Convenience Of Family And Accused Paramount For Jail Shifting; Trial Court Can't Reject Application Merely For Non-Residency: J&K High Court Litigants Who Attempt To Pollute The Stream Of Justice With Tainted Hands Are Not Entitled To Any Relief: Karnataka High Court Trial Court Must Implement Modified Preliminary Decree In Full: Telangana High Court Directs Partition Of Property Omitted In Final Decree Proceedings If Grievance Is Real But Lies Before Different Forum, Plaint Should Be Returned Under Order VII Rule 10 CPC, Not Rejected: Rajasthan High Court Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Due To Severity Of Economic Offence If Evidence Is Documentary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Non-Compliance With Mandatory Duty To Inform Grounds Of Arrest Under Section 47 BNSS Is Impermissible: Orissa High Court Grants Bail Land Acquisition Award Finality Under Section 12 Is A Bar To Writ Petitions Challenging 'Public Necessity': Madhya Pradesh High Court State As Eminent Domain Is Obligated To Pay Adequate Compensation, Not Minimum To Suit Its Convenience: Madras High Court Kerala High Court Grants Emergency Parole To Life Convict To Execute Sale Deed, Repay Bank Loan To Prevent Family's Eviction High Court Cannot Act As Court Of First Instance In Service Matters Amenable To CAT Jurisdiction: Delhi High Court Election Tribunal Has No Jurisdiction To Declare Caste Certificate Forged, Authority Vests Solely With Scrutiny Committee: Allahabad High Court Order IX Rule 7 CPC Requires 'Good Cause' Not 'Sufficient Cause'; Trial Court Can't Apply Higher Threshold To Pre-Decree Proceedings: Telangana High Court Victim Cannot Maintain Appeal Seeking Enhancement Of Sentence Under Section 372 CrPC; Such Power Exclusively With State: Rajasthan High Court Disability Pension: Presumption In Favour Of Personnel If Found Fit At Enrollment; Percentage Must Be Rounded Off: Punjab & Haryana HC Employee Entitled To Second Kramonnati Benefit If Promotion To Higher Post Does Not Result In Higher Pay Scale: Madhya Pradesh High Court Borrowers Can Be Granted Opportunity To Clear Loan Overdues In Installments To Prevent Coercive Action Under SARFAESI Act: Kerala 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