Lagacherla incident: Telangana High Court reserves order on Patnam’s petition

The judge also expressed serious reservations about the negligence of police officers in filing these complaints, highlighting that the contents of the FIRs were identical, with only the dates, accused persons, and places of offence altered.

By LEGAL CORRESPONDENT

Hyderabad: Justice K. Lakshman of the Telangana High Court today reserved orders on the criminal petition filed by Patnam Narender Reddy, former MLA of Kodangal, in connection with the Lagacherla incident. Justice Lakshman, after hearing both parties at length, raised concerns over the police’s actions, particularly questioning under which legal provisions multiple FIRs had been registered for the same offence. The judge also expressed serious reservations about the negligence of police officers in filing these complaints, highlighting that the contents of the FIRs were identical, with only the dates, accused persons, and places of offence altered. He noted that the complaints were drafted by the station writer, rather than by the police officers concerned themselves, a fact that drew criticism from the court.

---

Justice Lakshman remarked, “To copy also, you require some sense”, commenting on the lack of diligence in the police work.

The petitioner has challenged the registration of multiple FIRs against him for the same cause of action, alleging harassment by the police. The case is related to the violence that occurred during a protest involving landowners and farmers in the Lagacherla village, which led to the registration of several FIRs. The petitioner’s counsel, T.V. Ramana Rao, argued that the police had unlawfully registered three separate FIRs for the same incident, despite the legal principle that multiple FIRs on the same cause of action are not maintainable. Rao cited various rulings from the Supreme Court and the High Court on the illegality of registering multiple FIRs for identical allegations and incidents. Patnam Narender Reddy, accused of inciting violence and provoking farmers, was arrested in one of the FIRs (No. 153/2024). However, two other FIRs (Nos. 154 and 155/2024) were also registered for similar charges, despite the fact that the complainants were different individuals, including an MRO and a Dy. SP.

The content of the complaints was virtually identical, which led Justice Lakshman to question the legality and motives behind the police’s actions. However, Additional Advocate General T. Rajnikanth Reddy, appearing for the State, conceded that two of the FIRs could be merged. He clarified that the third FIR involved a different complainant and distinct allegations. He further explained that the incidents referenced in the FIRs occurred on different dates, prompting the registration of multiple complaints.

In another development, Patnam Narender Reddy, who has been in custody since November 13, 2024, filed a fresh criminal petition seeking protection from arrest in another FIR (No. 145/2024) related to an incident that occurred on October 25, 2024. Although the petitioner’s name does not appear in this FIR, he fears being arrested based on this complaint as well. His new petition seeks a direction for the court to grant bail in case of his arrest in this matter.